20080058 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20080108

UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
Alleghany County, North Carolina
Alleghany County, North Carolina
Restoration Plan
Prepared for: NCDENR-EEP
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1 H 103
Raleigh NC 27604
Contract No. D07027S
~ r ; ~ ,~.u
•
•
•
December 2007
a °~ o
x.. 'S ~
JAN ~ 2Q08
DENR - ~UAtrk UuA~~ 17
ti"JETIANDS AND STDRMW,41Ek'~~t1NCH

KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
Prepared by: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Project Manager: April H. Davis
Email: adavis(u~kci.com

• Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has selected the Crab Creek Site for a
stream and wetland restoration project. The project will involve the restoration of approximately 2,405
- linear feet and the preservation of 2,172 linear feet of an Unnamed Tributary to Crab Creek (UTCC). An
• Unnamed Tributary (UT1) will also include approximately 1,621 linear feet of restoration along with 583
linear feet of enhancement. In addition, the project will also involve approximately 4.7 acres of wetland
preservation, 3.7 acres of wetland enhancement, 0.2 acre of wetland creation, and 7.9 acres of wetland
restoration.
The site is located approximately 16 miles east of the Town of Sparta on NC-18 and approximately 6
- miles west of the intersection of NC-89 and NC-18 in Alleghany County, North Carolina. It is situated
- within the 05050001 Little River Watershed Cataloging Unit (8-digit HUC) and the 05050001030020
Local Watershed Unit (14-digit HUC), which drains approximately 51,200 acres within Alleghany
~ County. The NCEEP has identified this 14-digit HUC as a Targeted Local Watershed due to the large
- number of mitigation opportunities, the ability to conserve High Quality Waters, and the presence of rare
bog habitat (W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc. 2004).
The Local Watershed Plan for the Little River Watershed (Phase 1) indicates the two most significant
- problems adversely affecting water quality in the watershed are degradation of riparian habitat and
sedimentation (W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc. 2004). The majority of streams in the Little River watershed
contain open pasture with cattle grazing. This restoration project would address both issues by
- establishing a riparian buffer and stabilizing the stream.
Located on the property directly adjacent to UT1, are agricultural fields consisting of pumpkins,
Christmas trees, and no till corn. The agricultural fields are located on a hilly slope that drains directly
• into UT1 and UTCC-US. The agricultural production has led to increased surface runoff, erosion, and
sedimentation in the UT1 and UTCC reaches.
- UT1 originates from hillside seepage several hundred feet north of the project's northern boundary. This
- upstream section of stream located off the project site is heavily impacted by cattle and has active bank
erosion, torturous meanders, heavy sedimentation, undercutting banks, and a widening channel. As a
w result, this section of the project portion of UT1 has eroding and undercut banks and reaches with vertical
• banks. Several log and leaf debris jams exist along the stream with past litter of old, rusty cars and
appliances. Portions of UTl have defined riffles and pools. However, the further upstream section
contains heavy sedimentation. A corrugated metal pipe is located in UT1 and serves as an existing
- crossing. Upstream and downstream of the culvert, the stream is heavily incised and the channel is
actively widening.
- The UTCC upstream (UTCC-US) reach lacks a meandering pattern, natural features, and riparian
vegetation. As a result of channelization, the stream has vertical banks with a straight pattern that
contains only one artificial meander bend. The lack of a natural pattern has caused long riffles/runs with
a minimal amount of pools. Grass and shrubby vegetation exists sporadically along the stream banks but
• the stream is lacking a mature forested buffer.
UTCC-US and the downstream portion of UT1 were historically channelized at some point between 1950
- and 1964 to maximize the amount of cultivated land (W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc, 2004). channelization
• involves straightening and occasional widening of the stream to increase water flow downstream to drain
the land more quickly. This process allows the fields to be more farmable. The channelization of UT 1
and UTCC-US has increased sedimentation from bank erosion and led to down cutting and widening of
- the streams. The project streams also have decreased habitat quality and diversity as demonstrated by the
The UTCC downstream (UTCC-DS) reach begins at the tree line when the stream enters a more forested
• area. This section of stream begins with an overwidened riffle feature where the channelized reach ends

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
and enters a forested section. The downstream section of UTCC has an established pattern with an
extensive forested buffer. Overall, this reach is stable.
Existing wetlands at the site were delineated in December 2006 using the methods outlined by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE, 1987). There are currently eight separate wetlands at the project site,
totaling approximately 13.7 acres. Wetlands 1 and 5 have Swamp Forest-Bog Complex Communities.
Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 are all vegetated drainage features in cropland. Wetland 6 is classified as a Hillside
Seepage Bog Community, Wetland 7 is a Montane Alluvial Forest Community, and Wetland 8 is
classified as a Southern Appalachian Bog Community. The wetlands were classified in accordance with a
"Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation" (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990).
The restoration goals for this project are as follows:
^ Improve water quality for Crab Creek, which is categorized by NCDWQ as Class C, Trout Waters
(Tr).
^ Enhance and preserve riparian buffers to a headwater trout stream.
^ Enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat along an intact stream corridor.
^ Improve wetland functions by connecting and expanding the following wetland communities: Swamp
Forest-Bog Complex, Southern Appalachian Bog, and Montane Alluvial Forest.
^ Improve and expand Southern Appalachian Bog wetland habitat for the Bog Turtle.
The objectives that must be accomplished to reach these goals are:
^ Restore 4,026 linear feet of stable stream channel with the appropriate pattern, profile, and dimension
to support a gravel transport system.
^ Re-establish the natural stream features (bed heterogeneity) to restore diverse aquatic habitat.
^ Improve aquatic organism passage and habitat corridor continuity by replacing an existing culvert.
^ The conversion of existing croplands into Swamp Forest Bog-Complex Community and Southern
Appalachian Bog Community.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), Watershed Assessment Team (WAT) has
developed a monitoring plan for the project site in efforts to provide further baseline details prior to
restoration to implement post-restoration monitoring and data analyses (NCDWQ-WAT, 2007). The
monitoring objective is to "provide evidence of a change or improvement in water quality, hydrology and
habitat functions as a result of the restoration project" (NCDWQ-WAT, 2007). The monitoring plan is
included in Appendix B.

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
Table 1. Proiect Restoration Structure and nhiectivec
Streams

Reach Proposed
Station Range
Restoration Type Priority
Approach Stream
Classification Existing
Linear
Foota a Designed
Linear
Foota e

UT 1 (100+00-10170)
(102+g2-104+28)
(105+22- 110+62)
(113+12-116+30)
(119+60-123+93)

Restoration

P- I

B4c/C4

,313*

,204*

UT I (101+70-102+82)
(I 04+28-105+22)
(110+62-113+12)
(116+30-119+60)
Enhancement
E-II
B4c/C4
UTCC - US (10+00- 34+OS) Restoration P-2 C4 2,086 2,405
UTCC - DS - Preservation - E4 ? 172 _

:. oposed
etlands Acreage Soil Type Existing Community
Type Designed Community
Type
Wetland I 0.5 Preservation Nikwasi Swamp Forest-Rog
Coin lex Swamp Forest-Rog
Com lex
Wetland 2 1.0 Restoration Overfill/Nikwasi Cropland Swamp Forest-Bog
Com lex
Wetland 3 3.0 Restoration Nikwasi Cropland Southern Appalachian Bog

Wetl
d 4 2.7 Restoration
an
0.1
Enhancement OverfillMikwasi Cropland Southern Appalachian Bog

Wetland 5 0.1 Restoration
Nikwa
i Swam Forest-Bo
g Swam Forest-Bo
g
0.6 Enhancement s Complex Complex
Wetland 6 2.0 Preservation Nikwasi Swamp Forest-Bog
Com lex Swamp Forest-Bog
Com lex
0.9 Restoration Hillside Seepage Bog
Wetland 7
3.0
Enhancement Nikwasi Montane Alluvial
Forest Montane Alluvial Forest

Wetland 8 0.3 Restoration
Nik
i

0.2
Creation was Cropland Southern Appalachian Bog
Wetland 9 2.2 Preservation Nikwasi Southern Appalachian
Roy Southern Appalachian Rug
Stream Td _
Restoration 4,0261f
Enhancement 5H31f
Preservation 2,172 if
Wetland To ~~"~'
Restoration 7.9 acres
Enhancement 3.7 acres
Creation 0.2 acre ~k ~ H~. ;~ ;, .~ y~--~:~~~~c~ h s
Preservation 4.7 acres
mote: t ne wenana sort types were determined m a tteld mvest~gatton by a certified soil scientist from KCI.
*There are some discrepancies when comparing the existing and proposed thalweg alignments using stationing
lengths. This difference is due to the lateral movement of the existing stream thalweg within the bottom of its
banks, which exaggerates the actual amount of existing stream length. When comparing stream lengths using
existing and proposed stationing, the data shows a difference in linear footage, however after compensating for the
lateral movements mentioned above, the difference decreases. This is due to the straightening of a few sections in
order to reduce near bank stress.

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION ..............................................1
1.1 Directions to Project Site ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations ..................... 1
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................
2.1 Drainage Area .....................................................................................................
2.2 Surface Water Classification ...............................................................................
2.2.1 Water Quality .........................................................................................
2.3 Geology and Soils ...............................................................................................
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ...............................
2.4.1 Historical Resources ..........................................................
2.4.2 Land Use and Development Potential ................................
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species ....................................................
2.6 Cultural Resources .........................................................................
2.7 Potential Constraints ......................................................................
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ....................................
2 7 2 Site Access

........................... 3
........................... 3
........................... 4
........................... 5
. . ........................................................................................
2.7.3 Utilities ..............................................................................................
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass .............................................................

3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ............................................ 7
3.1 General Site Description ............................................................................................ 7
3.2 Channel Classification ................................................................................................ 8
3.3 Channel Morphology (Pattern, Dimension, and Profile) .......................................... 8
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment ................................................................................... 8
3.5 Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................. 9
3.6 Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 10
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS ..................................................................................................11
4.1 Lost Cove Creek Reference Site ................................................................................. 11
4.2 Reference Watershed Characterization ...................................................................... 12
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ........................................12
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................................................................................... 12
5.2 Hydrological Characterization .................................................................................... 12
5.2.1 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site ......................................................... 13
5.3 Soil Characterization ................................................................................................. 14
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification .............................................................................. 14
5.3.2 Profile Description ......................................................................................... 14
5.4 Wetland Plant Community Characterization ............................................................... 15
6.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS ..............................................................................................15
6.1 Hydrological Characterization .................................................................................... 15
6.1.1 Gauge Data Summary .................................................................................... 15
6.2 Soil Characterization ................................................................................................... 15
6.3 Plant Community Characterization ............................................................................. 15
7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN .......................................................................15
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ................................................................... 16

s
i
i
i
Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
7.1.1 Designed Channel Classification ................................................................... 17
7.1.2 Target Wetland and Buffer Communities ......................................................18
7.2 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................... 20
7.3 Wetland Hydrologic Modification .............................................................................. 20
7.3.1 Narrative of Modifications to Proposed Wetlands ......................................... 21
7.4 Natural Plant Community Restoration ........................................................................ 22
7.4.1 Planting Zones ................................................................................................ 22
7.4.2 Plant List ........................................................................................................ 22
7.4.3 On-site Invasive Species Management .......................................................... 24
8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ..........................................................................................24
8.1 Streams Stability ......................................................................................................... 24
8.2 Stream Riparian Vegetation ........................................................................................ 25
8.3 Wetland Hydrology ..................................................................................................... 25
8.4 Wetland Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 26
8.5 Schedule/Reporting .....................................................................................................26
9.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................27
TABLES
Table 1. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives ................................ Executive Summary
Table 2. Summary of Design Constraints .............................................................................. 6
Table 3. Bankfull Discharge ..................................................................................................10
Table 4. Mitigation Type and Extent .....................................................................................16
Table 5. Morphological Design Criteria ................................................................................19
FIGURES
Figure 1. Study Area Map
Figure 2. Vicinity Map
Figure 3. Project Watershed
Figure 4A-4G. Historical Aerial Photographs
Figure 5. Existing Conditions
Figure 6. Hydrologic Features
Figure 7. Existing Natural Communities
Figure 8. Reference Site Vicinity Map (Lost Cove Creek)
Figure 9. Reference Site Watershed (Lost Cove Creek)
Figure 10. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 11. Proposed Stream and Wetland Design
Plan Sheet 1
Plan Sheet 1 A
Plan Sheet 2
Plan Sheet 2A
Plan Sheets 4-7
Plan Sheets 15-20
PLAN SHEETS
Title Sheet
General Notes and Project Legend
Details: Stabilization
Details: Typical XS
Plan and Profile
Planting Plan

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
APPENDICES
Appendix A NCNHP and SHPO Correspondence/ NCHP Site Survey Report /Rare and Endangered
Plant Survey
Appendix B NCDWQ Stream Restoration Monitoring Plan
Appendix C Categorical Exclusion Checklist
Appendix D HEC-RAS Analysis
Appendix E Existing Site Photographs
Appendix F NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms & Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix G Existing Conditions
Appendix H Reference Reach Data
Appendix I Detailed Soils Investigation and Mapping for the Crab Creek Site
Appendix J Water Budget Analysis
Appendix K Sediment Competence Calculation Form

- Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site

i 1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
- The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has selected the Crab Creek Site for a
stream and wetland restoration project. The project will involve the restoration of approximately 2,405
linear feet and the preservation of 2,172 linear feet of an Unnamed Tributary to Crab Creek (UTCC). An
. Unnamed Tributary (UT1) will also include approximately 1,621 linear feet of restoration along with 583
linear feet of enhancement. In addition, the project will also involve approximately 4.7 acres of wetland
preservation, 3.7 acres of wetland enhancement, 0.2 acre of wetland creation, and 7.9 acres of wetland
. restoration opportunities (Figure 1). This restoration plan presents information describing the existing
i site and watershed conditions, the restoration design criteria, the design summary, and the proposed
monitoring protocol.
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The Crab Creek Site is located on a parcel owned by Mr. Keith Andrews. The project site is located
approximately 6 miles west of the intersection of NC-89 and NC-18 in Alleghany County, North
. Carolina.
From Raleigh:
- Proceed west on Interstate 40 (I-40). Continue on I-40 West toward Winston-Salem. Take Exit 193B
- (NC-8N/US-52N) to Mount Airy. Proceed on US-52N and take the I-74W ramp toward Wytheville I-77.
Take Exit 5 (I-77 South), proceed to Exit 100 (NC-89) to Mount Airy/Galax, turn left and proceed west
on NC-89. Turn left at NC-18 and proceed approximately 6 miles to the project site. The UTCC project
. site is located on the north side of NC-18 (Figure 2).
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
- UTCC is a second order stream that enters the property at the northeast boundary and flows south and
then west for a total of approximately 4,259 linear feet. UT1 is a first order tributary to UTCC and enters
the project site at the northern boundary and flows south for approximately 2,318 linear feet.
• The project site is within the Little River cataloging unit (8-digit HUC 05050001) and the
05050001030020 Local Watershed Unit (14-digit HUC). The site resides in the NCDWQ Subbasin OS-
07-03. The NCEEP directed a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) be developed for the Little Rvier Watershed,
- which was to identify "factors contributing to water quality degradation within a watershed and provide
- strategies to address non-point sources of pollution" (W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc. 2004). The objective of
the Local Watershed Plan was to identify stream, wetland and riparian buffer restoration projects (W.K.
Dickson & Co., Inc. 2004). As an objective of the LWP, the Crab Creek restoration project will benefit
- water quality, aquatic habitat and riparian buffers.
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
The project site is located within the New River Plateau Ecoregion of the Blue Ridge physiographic
province. The continental divide is located along the Blue Ridge, which separates the Little River
Watershed from adjacent drainages in the Yadkin Basin. The Blue Ridge region consists of "crystalline
- thrust sheets of allochthonous Precambrian basement rocks and late Precambrian to early Proterozoic
metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks" (W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc. 2004). The watershed topography
can be characterized as a "mountainous area of steep ridges, inter-mountain basins and valleys that
intersect at all angles, giving the areas rugged character" (NCGS, 2004). Several peaks in the Blue Ridge
• province exceed 5,000 feet in elevation.
2.1 Drainage Area
• The project watershed containing the study area, as seen in Figure 3, drains approximately 2.64 square
• miles (1,689 acres) and occupies the northeastern corner of the headwaters of the Little River. The project
watershed is to the west of the Blue Ridge Parkway and NC-18 crosses through the middle portion of the
watershed. The project watershed is located primarily in Alleghany County with the top portion of the
. watershed extending into Grayson County, Virginia.
. 1

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
2.2 Surface Water Classification
The NCDWQ assigns surface water classifications in order to help protect, maintain, and preserve water
quality. UT1 and UTCC are designated as Class C and Trout Waters (NCDENR, 2007). The project site
is in a unique position to improve water quality in atrout-supporting water.
• Class C Waters in North Carolina are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and
aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses suitable for Class C. 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 (NCDENR, 2006).
Trout Waters are intended to protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of
stocked trout. This designation affects wastewater quality but not the type of discharges and there are
no watershed development restrictions except for the stream buffer zone requirements of NC Division
of Land Resources (NCDENR, 2006).
2.2.1 Water Quality
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to recognize waters not meeting current water
quality standards by listing them as impaired and/or by support rating. These ratings refer to whether the
uses of water such as water supply, aquatic life protection and recreation are being met. No waters were
listed as impaired in Subbasin OS-07-03. All waters in the subbasin are listed as supporting aquatic life,
recreation, fish consumption, and water supply based on the 2005 status. Fish consumption in the
subbasin was listed as Not Rated due to insufficient data (NCDENR, 2005).
2.3 Geology and Soils
The local geology consists of a mixture of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rock of the Blue Ridge
Belt (NCGS, 1985).
The Alleghany County Soil Survey classifies the project area soils as Alluvial Land, Wet (Ad) and
Codorus complex (Cx). The Alluvial Land, Wet (Ad) consists of poorly drained, nearly level soils that
are variable in texture and subject to very frequent flooding. These soils are on floodplains and in upland
draws and depressions. The soil material is unconsolidated alluvium and fairly recently deposited. The
surface layer, 6 to 10 inches in thickness, is dominantly very dark grayish brown, but ranges from grayish
brown to black. The underlying layer ranges from dark-gray to black loamy sand to silty clay loam, 30 to
48 inches in thickness, underlain by stratified sandy material, gravel, or stones. Alluvial land, wet is
generally low in natural fertility and organic matter content. The acreage is about equally divided between
forest and pasture or meadow. Only a small acreage is typically cultivated. (USDA, 1973)
A small portion of the project site is mapped as Codorus Complex (Cx). This complex consists of
somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained, nearly level soils on floodplains. These soils are subject to
very frequent flooding. In a typical profile the surface layer is dark brown silt loam about 9 inches thick.
The subsoil is loam and silt loam to a depth of about 40 inches. It is dark brown to brown in the upper
part and is mottled grayish brown, dark grayish brown, and strong brown in the lower part. Below the
subsoil, to a depth of about 64 inches, is stratified sand and gravel. The Codorous soils are low in natural
fertility and organic matter content and are high in available water capacity (USDA, 1973).
According to the NRCS, Alleghany County Soil Survey, Alluvial Land, Wet (Ad) is the dominant soil
type in the project area. However, this classification was inconsistent with the observed soil conditions
at the site. A detailed soil investigation by a licensed soil scientist identified Nikwasi soils as occupying
the central portion of the site (See Appendix I).
2

i
Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
. 2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
2.4.1 Historical Resources
. Historical aerial photographs were obtained from the Ashe County Natural Resources Conservation
- Service (NRCS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Alleghany County GIS in order to enhance the
assessment of existing site conditions. The intent of the review was to understand the chronology of land
disturbance and aid in the evaluation of the site and the development of an appropriate restoration
• strategy. Aerial photographs were available for the site from 1941, 1964, 1976, 1982, 1993, 1998, and
2005 (Figures 4A-4G).
• In 1941, UTl and UTCC are visible. The upstream section of UTCC appears to have a highly sinuous
pattern and is not channelized as it is currently. The middle portion of UTCC goes through the center of
the site and shows large meander curves. There are no visible ditches in the current UTCC cropland area.
The upstream section of UT1 and downstream section of UTCC are not heavily forested. The adjacent
• properties have already been cleared for agriculture by this time.
In 1964, UT1 and UTCC are visible and resemble current conditions with the ditches visible in the UTCC
• cropland area. The downstream section of UTCC is forested and resembles current conditions. The
adjacent property to the west of the project site is cleared for agriculture.
. In 1976, UT1 and UTCC remain unchanged from 1964. The northern section of the project area is heavily
- forested. The adjacent agricultural fields to the west of UT1 appear to be entirely under cultivation. The
adjacent property to the south of the project site is forested.
- In 1982, UT1 and UTCC exhibit no changes from the 1976 photograph. A portion of the northern section
of the project area near UTl has been cleared and is no longer forested. The adjacent properties remain
unchanged.
• By 1993, UT1 and UTCC have not changed. The northern section of the project area has been forested.
A pond and a residence are located adjacent to the subject property to the east of UTCC. A mobile home
trailer is located on the subject property to the south of UTCC and along NC-18.
S By 1998, UT1 and UTCC have not changed. The adjacent properties have remained the same.
In 2005, UT1 and UTCC and the subject property resemble current conditions; no significant differences
are discernable.
Both UTCC and the lower section of UT1 have been channelized. Based on the aerial photograph record,
- channelization occurred between 1941 and 1964. The highly sinuous, meandering channel of UTCC in
1941 is no longer present in later photographs.
• 2.4.2 Land Use and Development Potential
The land cover evaluation indicates that the project watershed consists of: forest/wetland (53%) and
pasture/managed herbaceous (45%) (NCDENR, October 2005). The project subbasin OS-07-03 is
- primarily forest. However, the following agricultural activities also take place; pasture, orchards,
• cultivated cropland, livestock, dairy farms and Christmas tree production. The entire watershed is rural
with moderate development pressure with the nearest town being the Town of Sparta (NCDENR,
October 2005).
- Population density for the portion of the New River Basin in Alleghany County is helpful in determining
what streams are likely to be affected by population growth. Approximately 91% of the North Carolina
section of the basin is located in Alleghany County and this area has an estimated population growth of
• 12.1% between the years 2000-2020. In contrast to this data, the Town of Sparta is actually decreasing in
~ 3

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
population. There was a 16.0% increase in population from 1980-1990, while from 1990-2000 there was
a 7.2% decrease in population (NCDENR, October 2005).
The primary land uses on the subject property are pasture/agriculture and forest. Christmas trees, seasonal
pumpkins, and no till corn are currently being grown directly adjacent to UTI and UTCC on the eastern
portion of the site. According to the NCDWQ monitoring plan for Crab Creek, a fungicide (mancozeb) is
applied to the pumpkins on the property in the fall for production (NCDWQ, July 2007). The pumpkin
fields are located on a hill adjacent to the streams and may possibly enter the streams through stormwater
runoff, affecting aquatic life. The NCDWQ monitoring plan states that the fungicide has a "low mobility
and due to its high adsorption capacity will tend to adsorb to sediment. It has a moderate to high acute
toxicity range for fish (Orme, 2006). Ethylenethiourea (ETU), mancozebs metabolite, is not acutely toxic
but is a concern in that is persists in the environment for 5 to 10 weeks and is water-soluble" (NCDWQ,
July 2007). NCDWQ will continue to monitor the site for the fungicide following fall applications.
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species
KCI conducted an informal file review at the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's (NHP) office in
order to identify the potential for the presence of rare, threatened, or endangered species for the
Cumberland Knob Quadrangle and Alleghany County. The search revealed that the project site was
reviewed by the NHP in July 1989 and a Significant Natural Heritage Area Report was completed for the
Southern Appalachian Bog wetland area on-site. During the site review, the following significant species
were found on the project site: Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle), Veronica americana (American
speedwell), and Sanguisorba canadensis (Canadian burnet).
The Bog Turtle is the smallest turtle in North America, measuring only 4 to 5 inches in length. The turtle
has a dark brown shell with red, orange, or yellow markings on the neck. Its habitat ranges from wetlands,
meadows, bogs, and open cattle pastures in western North Carolina. Bog turtles have been observed in 22
counties in western North Carolina. The southern bog turtle population is listed as "threatened due to
similarity of appearance" as a result of the close similarities to the northern population (NCWRC, 2006).
Habitat loss is one of the greatest threats to the bog turtle population resulting from draining or filling
wetlands for development. Additionally, many wetlands and bogs are not maintained and trees tend to
take over, drying out the bog and mosses, which are prime habitat for the bog turtle (NCWRC, 2006).
The State of North Carolina lists the bog turtle as a Threatened State Species. "Any native or once-native
species of wild animal which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act" (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes, 1987).
The American speedwell is a herbaceous plant with a blue flower that grows partly in and partly out of
water. The species is found in swamps or along stream banks with stems reaching as much as 2 feet in
length (Virginia Tech Weed Identification Guide). The State of North Carolina lists the American
speedwell as a Significantly Rare-Peripheral State Species (SR-P). (SR): Species which are very rare in
North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers
by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). (P): The species is at the
periphery of its range in NC. These species are generally more common somewhere else in their ranges,
occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual in
North Carolina (NCNHP, 2006).
The Canadian burnet is not listed for Alleghany County or the Cumberland Knob Quadrangle as
a state species of concern.
KCI also requested a formal review by the NHP. The formal review stated that the NHP "has records of
rare plant and animal species and a significant natural heritage area within the project area." Furthermore,
the Natural Heritage Program stated that "because of the high potential for rare species and high quality
4

• Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
i
• natural areas" occurring within the project area, "a careful survey should be conducted during the growing
season" for location of species (Appendix A).
• A site walk was conducted by KCI on September 24, 2007 using random GPS points created in GIS to
. ensure coverage of the area. None of the endangered or threatened species mentioned above were located
in the survey. The results of the rare and endangered plant survey are included in Appendix A.
- Bog turtle populations are documented to be present at the site and coordination with North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission has been initiated in order to minimize any impacts to the species during
construction. Additional bog turtle surveys or evaluations will not be required. The bog turtle and
• American speedwell habitat will be preserved along with the downstream portion of UTCC. There will
be no disturbance to the channel and adjacent riparian zone; therefore, these species are not anticipated to
be affected by the proposed restoration project.
• 2.6 Cultural Resources
To evaluate the presence of significant cultural resources on the subject property and the potential impacts
S of the proposed project, KCI requested a formal review by the North Carolina Department of Cultural
- Resources. The formal review by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has "determined that the
project as proposed will not affect any historic structures."
A formal review was also requested from the State Archeology Office and they stated: "there are no
- known-recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. Based on the topographic and
hydrological situation, there is a very high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic
archeological sites. We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
• archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project" (Appendix A). Currently, the site is still being evaluated for an
archaeology survey.
• KCI also made a request for a formal review by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI). The
project site is located in a county claimed as territory by the EBCI. Currently, no return correspondence
has been received from EBCI.
2.7 Potential Constraints
The presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder restoration activities on the
- project site were evaluated. Existing information regarding project site constraints was acquired and
- reviewed. In addition, any site conditions that have the potential to restrict the restoration design and
implementation were documented during the field investigation. A Categorical Exclusion Checklist (CE)
• was prepared for the project site that summarizes any potential impacts to the environment (Appendix C).
• Table 2 lists the identified constraints related to the implementation of site restoration activities.
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
• The Crab Creek project site is located on one private property owned by Mr. Keith Andrews, 218 Willow
Bend, Galax, VA, 24333. NCEEP holds a conservation easement on the land necessary to undertake the
project and the mitigation will be protected by a conservation easement, in perpetuity.
. 2.7.2 Site Access
A gravel road off of NC-18 at the southeastern property boundary provides access to the project site.
- 2.7.3 Utilities
A power line easement held by Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation (BREMCO) transects the
• subject property parallel to the UTCC in a west to east orientation. The utility line crosses UTCC three
• 5

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
times. BREMCO has a 30-foot right-of--way along the utility line. During construction and post
construction, BREMCO will have access to the utility poles located on the project site. BREMCO will
access the site by way of the existing site entrance mentioned in Section 2.7.2. The utility company will
have machinery access to utility lines via the existing roadway crossing adjacent to the stream (Refer to
Plan Sheet 7). Vegetation planted with the powerline easement will consist of shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation as described in Section 7.4.2. No trees will be planted that will interfere with the utility
easement.
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
UT1 and UTCC are not located within a flood study area based on FEMA documentation. Therefore, no
floodplain elevations have been established.
The Crab Creek project site is contained entirely within one private property. A ditch located on the
southeast edge of the property will be filled to restore hydrology for the proposed wetland restoration.
Proper measures will be taken while designing the wetland in this area to ensure that water will not back
up onto the adjacent property. A HEC-RAS model has been developed that indicates the design will not
increase flood elevations on the neighboring properties (Appendix D).
Table 2. ~ummarv of neciun C'nnctraintc
Potential Constrafnt Nature of Constraint Pro ` Deed Resolntlon
Pasture (Christmas trees,
pumpkins, and no till corn Plant riparian buffer
Current Land Use (S
if
) roductions
pec
y
The stream design has been modified
Overhead Utility Line according to the utility line easement.
Adjacent Property Land Use Forest, Low-Density Residential N/A
Development
Pro'ect Constructibilit /Access NONE N/A
Corrugated metal pipe crossing Remove metal pipe and discontinue use of
alon UT1 crossin .
Install a 1-box culvert and 2 corrugated
Structures
Three corrugated metal pipes at metal pipes. The restoration will not
road crossing. interfere with the function of the structure.
The streambed will be designed to match
the invert of the i e outlet.
Cultural (Historical) No historic structure occurrences N/A
er NCDCR review.
No recorded archaeological sites.
Cultural (Archaeological) However, there is a possibility for Recommend a comprehensive site survey
presence of prehistoric or historic by an archaeologist.
archaeolo ical sites
NCNHP findings letter indicated
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered records of rare plant and animal KCI conducted a site survey with no
Species species. They recommended a occurrences of the species.
survey should be conducted during
the owin season.
Incorporate known bedrock into the
Natural Features (Soils, Bedrock) Bedrock outcrops in streambed design. Further discovery of bedrock may
and banks. necessitate in-field modifications of the
desi n.
Fill a ditch to restore a wetland; HEC-RAS analysis combined with proper
Hydrologic Trespass the ditch is located adjacent to a design of the wetland to ensure no
nei hborin roe h drolo is tree ass occurs.
FEMA Re lated Area NONE N/A
6

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
A site field assessment was conducted in April 2007 to document existing conditions and evaluate the
stream restoration potential. Observations and collected data are summarized below, illustrated in Figure
5, and documented in the site photographs (Appendix E). Two stream gauges were installed in December
2006. The site was revisited several times from December 2006 to June 2007 to take further
measurements and to collect hydrology data from the instruments. The gauge locations and other existing
hydrologic features are shown in Figure 6.
3.1 General Site Description
• The project includes the restoration of approximately 4,026 linear feet and the enhancement of 583 linear
. feet, of UT1 and UTCC-Upstream (UTCC-US). Also, the project includes the preservation of
approximately 2,172 linear feet of UTCC-Downstream (UTCC-DS). The project streams have been
- separated into three sections for design criteria development. UT1 consists of approximately 1,621 linear
. feet of stream restoration and 583 linear feet of stream enhancement. The UT1 project reach begins at the
northern property boundary at Station 100+00 Existing and flows south approximately 2,313 linear feet
before connecting to UTCC at Station 124+78 Existing. The second reach, UTCC-US, enters the
- property at the northeastern boundary at Station 10+00 and proceeds to flow south and west for
approximately 2,0871inear feet to Station 30+87 (Existing). The UTCC-DS section begins at the tree line
and flows west for approximately 2,172 linear feet before exiting the property through a culvert under
• NC-18.
UT1 exhibits characteristics of an unstable stream channel It originates in a pasture several hundred feet
north of where it enters the project site. This section of stream located upstream of the project site is
heavily impacted by cattle which has caused active bank erosion, torturous meanders, heavy
sedimentation, undercutting banks and widening. This upstream section of the stream has affected the
project site and as a result, the banks along UT1 are eroding, undercutting, and have sections that are
nearly vertical. Several log and leaf debris jams exist along the stream with past litter of old, rusty cars
and appliances. Portions of UT 1 have defined riffles and pools, but the section further upstream contains
heavy sedimentation. A corrugated metal pipe is located in UT1 and serves as an existing crossing.
Upstream and downstream of the culvert, the stream is heavily incised and the banks are actively
widening.
The UTCC-US reach lacks pattern, natural features, and riparian vegetation. The lack of a natural pattern
has caused long riffle/runs with minimal pool habitat and there is no natural riffle-pool sequencing. Grass
and shrubby vegetation exist sporadically along the stream banks, but the stream lacks a forested buffer.
As a result of past channelization, the channel has vertical banks with a straight pattern that contains only
one meander bend. Also, the channelization has increased sedimentation due to the down cutting and
widening of the stream. The straightening, deepening and widening of the channel adversely affects
habitat quality and diversity as demonstrated by the existing conditions.
- The UTCC-US stream channel passes through a culvert with three corrugated metal pipes at the project
site entrance. The existing access road from NC-18 will be improved and constructed as part of the
project. The access will provide the landowner with an equivalent level of service as currently provided
• (farm trucks, tractors and agricultural equipment). The proposed crossing will consist of one 8 by 8 feet
- reinforced concrete box culvert and two 5 foot corrugated metal pipes. All three are separate structures,
with a 10-foot spacing between the 8 by 8 box culvert and the metal pipes. The road is 24-foot wide
roadway of compacted gravel.
- The UTCC-DS reach begins at the tree line after leaving the open field area. The downstream section of
UTCC has a stable pattern with an extensive forested buffer with side channel bars present. Overall, the
- stream represents a stable channel with a natural forested buffer.
- 7

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
Currently, agricultural use and unforested riparian buffers in the watershed have led to increased surface
runoff, erosion, and sedimentation in the UT1 and UTCC reaches. Agriculture fields including pumpkin,
Christmas tree, and no till corn production are located on the subject property immediately to the west of
UT1 and UTCC. The fields are located on a slope that drains directly into UT1 and UTCC-US.
Christmas trees are located on the right bank floodplain along the downstream portion of UT1.
Three drainage features in Wetlands 2, 3, and 7 (existing) were evaluated using NCDWQ Stream
Classification Forms in January 2007 (Appendix F). The NCDWQ forms were used to determine if the
drainage features were classified as intermittent streams and none of these features were classified as
streams. The vegetated drainage feature in Wetland 4 was determined to be a man-made ditch; therefore,
the classification form was not necessary. Wetland Determination Forms were then used to delineate
these areas as jurisdictional wetlands (See Section 5.0). These data forms are included in Appendix F.
3.2 Channel Classification
UTl begins as an "F4" stream type with an entrenchment ratio of 1.2, a moderate to high width-to-depth
ratio of 16.7 and a bank height ratio of 2.4. The start of the UT 1 reach is overwidened with a bankfull
width of 15.8 feet. Downstream, the channel narrows and classifies as an "E4" stream type with a lower
width-to-depth ratio of 5.8 and an entrenchment ratio of 6.3. Low width-to-depth ratios and high
entrenchment ratios are typical of "E" type streams. Further downstream, the stream classifies as a "C4"
stream type with an entrenchment ratio of 3.5 and a moderate width-to-depth ratio of 15.7. The stream
then continues downstream with an entrenchment ratio of 3.3 and a moderate width-to-depth ratio of 10.6,
classifying the stream as an "E4". UT1 exits the forested area and enters an open pasture where the
channel narrows before connecting to UTCC. Past channelization has altered the downstream portion of
UT1.
UTCC-US is classified as a modified "E4" stream type. The stream begins with an entrenchment ratio of
3.7, a moderate width-to-depth ratio of 10, and a bank height ratio of 1.0.
UTCC-DS is classified as an "E4" stream type. This section of stream begins as an entrenched channel
with an entrenchement ratio of 3.7 with a moderate width-to-depth ratio 9.8 and a bank height ratio of 1.1.
The stream classification remains consistent as an "E4" stream throughout the project reach.
3.3 Channel Morphology (Pattern, Dimension, and Profile)
A Rosgen Level III assessment was conducted to gather existing stream dimension, pattern, and profile
data and to determine the degree of channel instability. Channel cross-sections were surveyed at ten
representative locations along UT1, seven places along UTCC-US and three locations along UTCC-DS.
Data developed from these surveys are presented in the existing conditions summary (Appendix G).
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
A quantitative stability assessment was performed to estimate the level of departure from a stable system
and to determine the likely causes of the channel disturbance. This assessment facilitates the decision-
making process with respect to analyzing restoration alternatives and establishing goals for successful
restoration. Bank Erodibility Hazard Index (BEHI) rating forms were prepared for reaches along UT1 and
UTCC (Appendix G). One BEHI rating form was performed on UT1 and two BEHI rating forms were
completed for the UTCC reach. UT1 exhibited a high BEHI rating of 30.5 with bank height ratios in the
project reach ranging from 1.0 to 2.4. The UTCC-US assessment exhibited a moderate BEHI rating of
28.9 with bank height ratios ranging from 1.0 to 1.3. High bank height ratios (>1-2) are typical of incised
and/or channelized streams. The UTCC-DS sample exhibited a low BEHI rating of 15.4 with bank
height ratios ranging from 1.0 to 1.1.
UT1 and UTCC-US exhibit characteristics of unstable stream channels. Most notably, the channels show
evidence of bank erosion and undercutting along with channelization in portions of each reach.
Furthermore, several sections of UT1 and UTCC-US do not have vegetation on the banks and
8

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
• consequently lack rooting strength and cover protection. The UTCC-DS section has an adequate forested
buffer and surface protection resulting in a more stable condition.
- 3.5 Bankfull Verification
The standard methodology used in natural channel design is based on the ability to select the appropriate
bankfull discharge and generate the corresponding bankfull hydraulic geometry from a stable reference
system(s). The determination of bankfull stage is the most critical component of the natural channel
- design process.
Bankfull can be defined as "the stage at which channel maintenance is most effective, that is, the
- discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or changing bends and
- meanders, and generally doing work that results in the average morphologic characteristics of the
channels," (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Several characteristics that commonly indicate the bankfull stage
. include: incipient point of flooding, breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, highest depositional features
• (i.e. point bars), and highest scour line. The identification of bankfull stage, especially in a degraded
system, can be difficult. Therefore, verification measures were undertaken to validate the correct
identification of the bankfull stage on UT1 and UTCC.
• Field identification of bankfull indicators on the existing cross-sections was utilized on UT1 and UTCC-
US. For UT1, XS-7 and XS-10 demonstrated bankfull discharges of 62 ft3/s and 71 ft3/s respectively.
• For UTCC-US, XS-13 and XS-18 had bankfull discharges of 115 ft3/s and 129 ft3/s, respectively.
The methods used to confirm bankfull stage at UT1 and UTCC were bankfull field identification and a
pressure transducer /data logger combination gauge that monitored actual water levels in UTCC
- throughout the study period. The regional hydraulic geometry relationships (regional curves) were
utilized to compare the bankfull discharge from the pressure transducers and field identification.
- Stream stage data (water levels) were collected from two gauges on UTCC-US and UTCC-DS. Data
. were collected for seven months (December 2006 through June 2007) and water levels were correlated to
an estimated discharge using a rating curve generated for the gauged sections. During the gauging period,
three significant storm events were recorded for each gauge. For the UTCC-US gauge, the maximum
• discharge event recorded was 254 ft3/s from a 3.3 feet stage on January 1St. The second largest event
recorded was 61 ft3/s for a stage event of 1.6 feet on March 2°a. The third event recorded was 18 ft3/s
from a 0.86 feet stage event on March 16th. At the UTCC-DS gauge, the maximum discharge event
• recorded was 184 ft3/s for 3.1 feet on January 1St. The second largest event recorded was 30 ft3/s from a
1.3 feet stage event on March 2°d. The third event recorded was 19 ft3/s fora 1.0 foot stage event on April
15th. Continuous hydrographs were developed for both UTCC-US and UTCC-DS and are provided in
- Appendix G.
Regional curves are typically utilized in ungauged areas to approximate bankfull discharge, area, width,
and depth as a function of drainage area based on interrelated variables from other similar streams in the
- same hydrophysiographic province. Regional curves and corresponding equations from "Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams" (Harman et al., 1999) were used to
approximate bankfull in the project reaches. Based on the regional curves, a bankfull discharge and
• cross-sectional area were estimated for all three reaches. For UT1, the regional curve estimates a bankfull
- discharge of 62 ft3/s and a cross sectional area of 14 ft2. For UTCC-US, the regional curve estimates a
bankfull discharge of 197 ft3/s and a cross sectional area of 39 ft2. For UTCC-DS, the values were
estimated at 210 ft3/s and 42 ftz.
- After analyzing the bankfull verification results, the design discharges were set for the project reaches.
The design bankfull discharge for UT1 is 66 ft3/s, which is comparable with the pressure transducer
recording for the second largest event of 61 ft3/s and the field bankfull indicators at XS-7 and XS-10. The
. 9

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
design Bankfull discharge for UTCC is 117 ft3/s, which is comparable with the field Bankfull indicators at
XS-13 and XS-18. The design Bankfull discharges are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Bankfull Discharge
Parameters UT1 (Dischar e) UTCC-US (Dischar a UTCC-DS (Dischar e)
Re Tonal Curve 62 ft3/s 197 ft3/s
Pressure Transducer
Maximum Event 254 ft3/s 184 ft3/s
Second Event 61 ft3/s 30 ft3/s
Third Event 18 ft3/s 19 ft3/s
Bankfull Field Indicators
XS-7 62 ft3/s
XS-10 71 ft3/s
XS-13 115 ft3/s
XS-18 129 ft3/s
XS-19 146 ft3/s
XS-21 178 ft3/s
Desi Dischar e 66 ft3/s 117 ft3/s
3.6 Vegetation
During the month of December 2006, Steven Stokes and April Davis conducted a field investigation of
the project area to document the existing vegetative communities (Figure 7). Six existing natural
communities were classified in accordance with a "Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation" (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The field investigation focused on flora,
fauna and overall habitat structure. The flora, including dominant species per stratum, were identified and
recorded.
The first community was classified as Swamp Forest-Bog Complex. This community is located along the
northern portion of the project site along the floodplain of UT1. The dominant species observed in this
community were witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), sweet birch (Betula lenta), muscadine grape (Vitis
rotundifolia), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), red osier dogwood (Corpus sericea), spicebush (Lindera
benzoin), multiflora rose (Rosa mult~ora), rosebay rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), American
holly (Ilex opaca), skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), red maple (Ater rubrum), common elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), oak species, and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica).
The Swamp Forest-Bog Complex community also currently exists along the floodplain of UTCC-DS.
Additional species observed in this area were common elderberry, black cherry, oak species, green ash,
multiflora rose, green hawthorn (Crataegus viridis), red maple, red osier dogwood, skunk cabbage,
muscadine grape, spicebush, peat moss (Sphagnum spp.), American holly, and tag alder (Alnus serrulata).
A second community was classified as White Pine Forest. This community is located along the northern
portion of the project site outside of the floodplain on the hill slope. The dominant species observed in
this community were eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
and red maple.
Another portion of the site was classified as a cropland community. This community is located
sporadically throughout the project site. There is a small area located in the northern portion of the
project site near UT1. The majority of the cropland community is in the southeastern portion of the
project in UTCC-US area. Two more areas reside in the southwestern portion of the project site near
UTCC-DS and the bog habitat area. The dominant species observed in the community are as follows:
10

• Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
- various grasses, red maple, multiflora rose, muscadine grape, black cherry, tag alder, pokeberry
- (Phytolacca americana), spicebush, and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
• A fourth community was classified as Montane Alluvial Forest. This community is located along UTCC-
• DS outside of the Swamp Forest-Bog Complex floodplain and adjacent to the Southern Appalachian Bog.
The dominant species observed in the community were as follows: greenbriar (Smilax sp.), cucumber tree
(Magnolia acuminata), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), black walnut (Juglans nigra), red maple,
- multiflora rose, green hawthorn, hickory (Carya sp.), skunk cabbage, green ash, peat moss, tag alder, and
muscadine grape.
- A small portion of the site was classified as a Hillside Seepage. This community is located in the north-
- central part of the site. The dominant species observed in the community are as follows: red maple,
elderberry, skunk cabbage, black cherry, American holly, white pine, peat moss, tag alder, muscadine
grape, and cattail (Typha angustifolia).
A sixth area was classified as a Southern Appalachian Bog community. This community is located along
the southwestern portion of the project. The dominant species observed in the community were as
• follows: tag alder, woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), arrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), common
- rush (Juncus effusus), and sedges (Carex spp.).
The investigation also included the fauna observed throughout the project area. Techniques used to
- identify the presence of animal species included direct visuaUaudible observations and indirect
observations such as the presence of tracks, cavities, nests, fecal material, and carcasses. During several
field visits, numerous wild turkeys and deer were observed on the project site.
• 4.0 REFERENCE STREAM
A reference reach is a channel with a stable dimension, pattern, and profile within a particular valley
- morphology. The reference reach is used to develop dimensionless morphological ratios (based on
. bankfull stage) that can be extrapolated to disturbed/unstable streams to restore a stream of the same type
and disposition as the reference stream (Rosgen, 1998). One reference reach was used for this project,
Lost Cove Creek in Avery County, North Carolina. Many potential sites were evaluated for suitability as
• a reference for UT1 and UTCC-US. Agriculture and roads heavily impacted the majority of the streams
visited in the New River Basin. The search area was broadened to include the Watauga Basin and the
western portions of the Catawba and French Broad River Basins.
• 4.1 Lost Cove Creek Reference Site
A reach of Lost Cove Creek was surveyed by North Carolina State University's Water Quality Group in
June 1998 (Appendix H). The reference site is located in the southeastern portion of Avery County
• adjacent to the Caldwell County line (Figure 8). The reach was classified as a "C3" channel at this
location. Morphological data from this reference stream were used for the design of UTCC-US. Lost
Cove Creek drains approximately 24.8 square miles of low-density residential and forested lands (Figure
- 9). The reach is located in the Blue Ridge province, which is where the UTCC site is also located. The
• valley slope is similar to the project valley slope. The D84 at Lost Cove Creek is 512 mm, compared to
110 mm for UTCC-US. There is a considerable difference in the D84 sediment size, but a more suitable
reference reach could not be located. To compensate for the sediment size difference, the designed
- channel was modified to accommodate the flow and sediment transport. The dimensionless hydraulic
geometry relationships were developed from stable channel dimensions to facilitate the design of the
proposed channel cross-sections for UTTC-US restoration reach.
11

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
4.2 Reference Watershed Characterization
Lost Cove Creek is situated within the northern portion of the Catawba River Basin. The reference
stream is within the USGS 14-digit Hydrologic Unit 03050101070030 and is located within the DWQ
Subbasin 03-08-31.
The portion of the Lost Cove Creek evaluated as the reference reach is located in the Pisgah National
Forest and is north of Morganton in Avery County. The section of stream surveyed is west of the town of
Edgemont and is accessible from Forest Service Road 464. The topographic relief within the reference
watershed ranges from approximately 1560 feet AMSL to 4600 feet AMSL at the top of Grandmother
Mountain.
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
There were eight existing distinct wetlands identified on the project site. The soils in the project area were
delineated by using data from soil borings throughout the site. A Detailed Soils Investigation and
Mapping for the Crab Creek Site is included in Appendix I. Portions of the project site are currently
forested with actively farmed cropland located in the southeastern portion of the project site.
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Existing wetlands were delineated in December 2006 using the methods outlined by the US Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE, 1987). Eight existing wetlands were mapped in the project area (Figure 7).
Wetland 1 is located in the northern portion of the project site on the floodplain of UT1 and includes
approximately 2.1 acres. Wetlands 2 and 3 are both located in the southeastern corner of the property
adjacent to UTCC-US and are approximately 0.4 and 0.3 acre, respectively. Wetland 4 is located on the
southern portion of the project site and is approximately 0.3 acre. Wetland 5 includes UTCC-DS and is
approximately 4.7 acres, while Wetland 6 is a small pocket consisting of 0.1 acre. Wetland 7 and 8 are
located on the southwestern portion of the project and are approximately 3.6 and 2.2 acres, respectively.
The wetlands at the project site are currently under review by the USAGE for a jurisdictional
determination. Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 are all man-made vegetated drainage features that drain standing
water directly into UTCC.
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
Existing Wetland 1
This wetland has formed along sections of UT1 with an adjacent floodplain. Several small springs and
seeps along with UT1 extend the length of this wetland. Spring, along with occasional overbank flooding
from UT1, contribute hydrology to the wetland.
Existing Wetland 2
Wetland 2 is a vegetated drainage feature, which flows south and then west before connecting to UTCC-
US. The area has been dug out to facilitate drainage off the site. An artesian well located off the property
is the primary hydrologic source for Wetland 2.
Existing Wetland 3
Wetland 3 is a vegetated drainage feature that flows west and then north until continuing underground to
connect to UTCC-US. This wetland is an excavated area that runs along the edge of the agricultural field.
Hillside and roadway drainage from a culvert under NC-18 is a major hydrologic source for Wetland 3.
Existing Wetland 4
Wetland 4 is a vegetated drainage feature that flows west before connecting to a spring, which then flows
into UTCC-DS. Groundwater from an artesian spring and several seeps flow into the wetland. The
artesian spring is the primary hydrologic source for Wetland 4. The wetland has formed where a ditch
had been created. Wetland 4 has formed in an excavated area that drains the adjacent farmland.
12

i
• Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
- Existing Wetland S
There are several small springs and seeps along with UTTC-DS that extend the length of the wetland
through a forested area. The springs along with the occasional overbank flooding from UTTC-DS
• contribute hydrology to the wetland.
Existing Wetland 6 and 7
Wetland 6 receives direct hydrology from a spring from a hillside slope that discharges groundwater into
. the wetland. These sources also provide hydrology to Wetland 7.
Existing Wetland 8
- Wetland 8 is located in the southwestern portion of the project area and is a functioning Southern
- Appalachian Bog system. A small, seasonally intermittent stream was identified in the bog area. This
stream flows south and provides water to the bog area before flowing underground to connect to UTCC-
DS.
5.2.1 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site
- Existing Conditions
• Existing site hydrology was modeled by developing an annual water budget that calculates hydrologic
inputs and outputs in order to estimate the change in storage on a monthly time step (Appendix J). The
analysis divided the site into four different wetland areas using the boundaries shown in Appendix J.
In order to set up the water budget, historic climatic data were obtained from the North Carolina State
Climatic Office. The weather station Sparta 2 SE (318158) in Sparta, North Carolina was used, because it
S is the nearest station with daily precipitation and temperature records. Monthly precipitation totals from
• the entire period of record (1948-2006) were reviewed and three years were selected to represent a range
of precipitation conditions: a dry year (1988), an average year (1966), and a wet year (1989).
• Potential inputs to the water budget include precipitation, groundwater, and surface inputs. For
precipitation, the data from the three selected years were used in the budget. Groundwater inputs from
hillside seepage were assumed within a certain range for each wetland area. Surface water input was
- calculated using the USDA Soil Conservation Service runoff curve number equation (USDA, SCS 1986).
Outputs from the site include potential evapotranspiration (PET), groundwater, and surface water outlets.
• PET was calculated by the Thornthwaite method using mean monthly temperatures determined from the
• chosen years of record: 1988, 1966, and 1989. Surface water is currently lost from the site without any
wetland microtopography to retain water between minor grade fluctuations. Groundwater loss was
considered negligible in comparison to surface outputs. A substantial amount of water is lost through the
- existing ditches on-site. A DRAINMOD model was set up to simulate the effect of the existing drainage
network on wetland hydrology. The program evaluated 40 years of available precipitation data and
produced a monthly loss due to the ditches and UTCC for the three selected years. Although
- DRAINMOD is not as suited to montane environments, it was only used to provide approximate output
- values for the stream and ditch drainage network.
Once the inputs and outputs were determined, a net monthly total was calculated in inches and used to
. estimate a yearly water budget. The model assumes unsaturated conditions at the beginning of the year. A
maximum wetland water volume of 4.68 inches was calculated based on the specific yield of 0.13 for 36
inches of Nikwasi soil in order to analyze conditions in the upper three feet of the soil profile. The
- resulting hydrographs for the average, dry, and wet years show a seasonal pattern. The water budgets in
the beginning of the year show an elevated rise in groundwater. The site loses groundwater saturation
during the growing season as the stream and ditches drain surface and precipitation inputs. The late fall
sees a slight increase in hydrologic inputs again. The budget for Wetland Area 1 does not show any
- 13
--- _ _ _ __

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
jurisdictional hydrology except during a wet year and Wetland Areas 2 and 3 show similar trends.
Wetland Area 4 shows little groundwater hydrology at all except during a spike midsummer during the
wet year.
Proposed Conditions
Modified water budgets were developed to analyze the effect of restoration actions on the site hydrology
(see Section 7.3 below). The loss of water from the existing drainage network was altered in
DRAINMOD to reflect the change in effective depth and stream spacing based on the proposed design.
Surface and groundwater are assumed to remain on-site after the completed restoration of wetland
topography, which will slow down and capture overland flow.
After inserting these changes for the proposed conditions, the water budgets show increased hydroperiods
at all of the wetland sites. Wetland Areas 1, 2, and 3 all predict jurisdictional hydrology during the early
spring, but show groundwater levels decreasing into the summer months. The proposed streams still
provide an outlet for hydrology off of the site but there is a degree of uncertainty attached to these results
using DRAINMOD. The difference between the actual and assumed inputs from hillside seepage on the
site could also alter the post-construction results. For example, the water budget for Wetland Area 4 does
not predict a large increase in site hydrology, but this area is most heavily influenced by groundwater
inputs (hillside seeps were flowing strongly during site visits throughout the 2007 drought). The site will
be closely monitored to track groundwater levels across the site following restoration.
5.3 Soil Characterization
A soils investigation was conducted by a certified soil scientist from KCI to determine the extent and
distribution of the hydric soils on the site and to classify the predominate soils to the soil series level. The
investigation consisted of delineating the hydric soil boundaries with pink flagging in accordance with the
US Army Corps of Engineers (1987). Areas that were identified as possible hydric soil mapping units
were surveyed at a higher intensity until the edge of the mapping unit was identified. The boundary of the
hydric and non-hydric soil mapping units were then followed by continual sampling and observations as
the boundary line was identified and delineated. In those areas where the boundary was found to be a
broad gradient rather than a distinct break, microtopography, landscape position, soil textural changes,
redoximorphic features, and depleted matrices were additionally considered to identify the extent of the
hydric soils.
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification
According to the NRCS, Alleghany County Soil Survey, Alluvial Land (Ad) is the dominant soil type in
the project area (Figure 10). After a detailed field investigation, Steven Stokes, LSS mapped the
dominant soil type for all wetlands as Nikwasi (Coarse-Loamy over Sandy or Sandy-Skeletal, Mixed,
Superactive, Nonacid, Mesic Cumulic Humaquepts).
5.3.2 Profile Description
The Alleghany County Soil Survey classifies all the soils underlying the site Alluvial Land, Wet (Ad) and
Codorus complex (Cx). However, this classification was inconsistent with the observed soil conditions at
the site. A detailed soils investigation by a KCI soil scientist identified Nikwasi soils as occupying the
central portion of the site (Appendix I). This detailed soils investigation was conducted by augering
numerous soil borings across the site in areas identified by landscape position, vegetation, and slope. The
soils in the south central and eastern portion of the project site do not have hydric features until a depth of
approximately 18-24 inches. This is likely caused from overfill that has been placed on top of the
Nikwasi soil below (see Figure 5).
The Nikwasi soil series is described as very poorly drained, moderately permeable soils on floodplains in
the Blue Ridge. These soils formed in recent alluvium consisting of loamy material that is moderately
deep to strata of sand, gravel, and cobbles (USDA, NRCS 2007). Slopes are typically 0 to 3 percent.
14

• Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
- Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown loam and 8 inches thick. The A-horizon from 0 to
8 inches contains very dark grayish brown fine sandy loam and dark grayish brown dry with a moderate
fine granular structure. The A-horizon from 8 to 26 inches contains a very dark gray fine sandy loam and
- dark gray dry with a weak medium granular structure. The C-horizon from 26 to 60 inches contains dark
i grayish brown and multicolored gravel to coarse sand, including water worn gravel with many cobbles
(USDA, NRCS 2007).
• 5.4 Wetland Plant Community Characterization
The existing wetland communities were classified in accordance with a "Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation" (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Wetlands 1 and 5
. consist of Swamp Forest-Bog Complex Community. Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 are all vegetated drainage
i features that consist of various grass species. Wetland 6 is classified as a Hillside Seepage Bog
Community, Wetland 7 is a Montane Alluvial Forest Community, and Wetland 8 is classified as a
Southern Appalachian Bog Community. The existing wetland communities and their vegetation are
- described in detail in Section 3.6.
r 6.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS
i The two reference wetlands are located on the project site and consist of the Swamp Forest-Bog Complex
- Community (Existing Wetland 5) and Southern Appalachian Bog Community (Existing Wetland 8). The
locations of the reference wetlands are depicted in Figure 7 with the existing natural communities.
- 6.1 Hydrological Characterization
The Swamp Forest-Bog Complex wetland receives hydrologic inputs from several small springs, seeps,
and precipitation along with overbank flooding from UTTC-DS. The Southern Appalachian Bog wetland
• receives direct groundwater and surface hydrology from a small intermittent stream located in the
- wetland. This stream flows to the south and provides hydrology to the bog area before flowing
underground to connect to UTCC-DS.
- 6.1.1 Gauge Data Summary
The groundwater within the reference wetlands will be evaluated by monitoring the water levels with on-
site HOBO recording pressure gauges. One gauge will be placed in each reference wetland. Data from
- these gauges will be compared to gauges at the restoration areas. The gauge will be programmed to
measure water levels once daily. The data will be downloaded periodically and evaluated to determine the
depth and duration of the groundwater level at the reference sites. The two reference wetland gauges were
- installed in August 2007 and their locations are shown in Figure 7.
6.2 Soil Characterization
The soil type for the Swamp Forest-Bog Complex and Southern Appalachian Bog wetland is consistent
with the Nikwasi soil type as described in detail in Section 5.3.
6.3 Plant Community Characterization
- The composition of plant species at the reference wetlands is best described as a Swamp Forest-Bog
- Complex and Southern Appalachian Bog. These communities are described in detail in Section 4.4.
7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
The restoration project involves approximately 2,405 linear feet and the preservation of 2,172 linear feet
of UTCC. UT1 will also include approximately 1,621 linear feet of restoration along with 583 linear feet
of enhancement. In addition, the project will also involve approximately 4.7 acres of wetland
w preservation, 3.7 acres of wetland enhancement, 0.2 acre of wetland creation, and 7.9 acres of wetland
restoration.
15

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The restoration goals for this project are as follows:
^ Improve water quality for Crab Creek, which is categorized by NCDWQ as Class C, Trout Waters
(Tr).
^ Enhance and preserve riparian buffers to a headwater trout stream.
^ Enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat along an intact stream corridor.
^ Improve wetland functions by connecting and expanding the following wetland communities: Swamp
Forest-Bog Complex, Southern Appalachian Bog, and Montane Alluvial Forest.
^ Improve and expand Southern Appalachian Bog wetland habitat for the Bog Turtle.
The objectives that must be accomplished to reach these goals are:
^ Restore 4,026 linear feet of stable stream channel with the appropriate pattern, profile, and dimension
to support a gravel transport system.
^ Re-establish the natural stream features (bed heterogeneity) to restore aquatic habitat.
^ Improve aquatic organism passage and habitat corridor continuity by replacing the culvert.
^ The conversion of existing croplands into Swamp Forest Bog-Complex Community and Southern
Appalachian Bog Community.
The UTCC-DS section has a relatively stable pattern and an extensive forested buffer. Preserving this
natural streamside vegetation is a restoration goal and objective. Several benefits of vegetated buffers
include "filtering runoff and taking up nutrients, moderating water temperature, preventing erosion and
loss of land, providing flood control and helping to moderate streamflow, and providing food and habitat
for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife" (NCDENR, October 2005).
As a restoration goal and objective, approximately 11.03 acres of cropland will be restored along with
preserving existing habitat for Bog Turtle. The bog turtle prefers "open wet meadows, shallow water
marshes, spring seeps, flood plain wetlands, bogs, and fens" (Shiels, 1997-2007). The intent of the
restoration for the Southern Appalachian Bog wetland is to offer a variety of depressional
microtopography for occasional surface water storage. The UTCC-US will be designed as a riverine
stream, which will provide the occasional overbank flooding for these depressional wetland areas. The
existing seeps and springs on the project site will provide additional groundwater flow to the wetlands.
Table 4. Miti anon T e and Extent
Stream Stream Stream Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland
Restoration Enhancement Preservation Restoration Enhancement Creation Preservation
l l 1 Acres Acres Acres Acres
UT1 1,621 583 - - - -
UTCC-
2,405 - - - - -
US -
UTCC-
_ 2,172 - - - -
DS
Proposed
Wetland - - - - - - 0.5
#1
Proposed
Wetland - - - 1.0 - - -
#2
Proposed
Wetland - - - 3.0 - - -
#3
Proposed

Wetland _
-
-
2.7
0.1
-
-
16

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
#4
Wetland

#5 _ _ _ 0.1 0.6
-
-
Proposed
Wetland - - - - _ _ 2.0
#6
Proposed
Wetland - - - 0.9 3.0 - -
#7
Proposed
Wetland - - - 0.3 - 0.2 -
#8
Proposed
Wetland - _ _ _ 2.2
#9
TOTAL 4,026 583 2,172 7.9 3.7 0.2 4.7
7.1.1 Designed Channel Classification
Below is a description of the specific design approach used for UT 1 and UTCC-US.
The design for UT1 proposes constructing approximately 2,204 linear feet of "B4c/C4" channel. The
restoration design for UT1 is based on a Priority 3 approach as described in "A Geomorphological
Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers" (Rosgen, 1993). The Priority Approach 3 design which
restores a "B4c" type stream, generally within the existing stream corridor/belt width, through
adjustments to the stream dimension and profile. Because an appropriate reference reach could not be
found for UT1, the proposed stream dimension is based on an analytical design approach fora "B4c/C4"
channel type. The pattern and profile were developed from detailed morphological criteria and hydraulic
geometry relationships taken from stable sections of the existing UT1 (see Table 5). There are
approximately 583 linear feet of stream enhancement (Enhancement II) as part of the UT1 design. There
are four Enhancement II reaches that go from proposed Station 101+70 to 102+82, Station 104+28 to
105+22, Station 110+62 to 113+12, and Station 116+30 to 119+60. Revegetation and stream bank
stabilization constitute the work proposed in the enhancement reaches.
The design for UTCC-US proposes restoring 2,405 linear feet of meandering "C4" channel and associated
floodplain. The Priority 2 restoration will establish a bankfull channel with a new floodplain, a channel
bed at its current elevation in an existing gravel layer, and the cross-section dimensions necessary to
provide stable flow maintenance and sediment transport. The Lost Cove Reference Site provided the
morphological criteria and hydraulic geometry relationships that were the basis for the proposed stream
dimension, pattern, and profile (Table 5).
- In-stream structures, including step pools and riffle grade control, will be used to stabilize the restored
channels (Refer to Plan Sheet 2). These structures are designed to reduce bank erosion, influence
secondary circulation in the near-bank region of stream bends, and provide grade control. The structures
- further promote efficient sediment transport and produce/enhance in-stream habitat. Riffle areas will also
- be enhanced with graded gravel material to mimic existing stable riffle features. Coir fiber matting and
seeding will be used to stabilize the newly graded stream banks and live stakes will be planted to provide
long-term rooting strength.

17

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
7.1.2 Target Wetland and Buffer Communities
There are three targeted wetland communities that comprise approximately 7.9 acres of wetland
restoration, 3.7 acres of wetland enhancement, 0.2 acre of wetland creation, and 4.7 acres of wetland
preservation. These community types fit into the natural topography of the project site and its watershed.
Reference wetlands exist on the site and will connect to proposed wetland communities. The wetland
communities were classified according to "Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation" (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Refer to Section 3.6 for the dominant species in
each community.
The target buffer communities consist of approximately 3.0 acres of Swamp Forest-Bog Complex and 5.3
acres of Southern Appalachian Bog. The Swamp Forest Bog will be located along UT1, while the
Southern Appalachian Bog will be located along UTCC-US.
18

i
•
Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
Table 5. Mornholo~ical Design Criteria
Project Site E~fsting Channel Reference
Reach Restated Reach
Variables
UTi
Restoration
UT1
Enhancement

UTCC-US
Lost Cove
Creek

UTi

UTCC-US
Ros en Stream T e G4/C4 C4 C4 C3 B4c/C4 C4
Draina a Area mi 0.53 0.53 1.65 24.80 0.53 1.65
Bankfull Width W bkf ft 9.9 - 15.8 12.2 - 15.8 17.6 - 24.5 59.7 - 64.9 13.1 ** 24.0
Bankfull Mean De th dbkf ft 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.2 1.4 - 1.8 3.3 - 3.4 I.1 ** 1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional
area Abkf ftZ 14.9 - 15.0 14.1 -15.9 30.8 - 34.0 198 - 218 14.8 ** 34.2
//
Width/de th Ratio bkf~dbkf 6.5 - 16.7 10.6 - 15.7 10.0 - 17.9 18.1 - 19.1 12.0 ** 17.1
Maximum De th dmbkf ft 1.2 - 2.2 1.4 - 2.4 2.3 - 3.2 5.0 - 5.8 2.0 ** 2.3
Width of flood tone area W a ft 18 ->55 44 ->55 65 - >80 200 - 296 22-33 ** 54
Entrenchment Ratio R 1.2 - 5.6 3.2 - 3.5 3.1 - 4.1 3.1 - 5.0 1.7 ** 2.3
Sinuosity (stream length/valley length)
K 1.19 1.19 1.04 1.20 1.14 1.20
Pool De th ft mean 1.3-1.5 1.2 3.0 - 3.3 7.7 1.0 1.9
RiffleD th ft 1.0-1.5 1.0-1.2 1.4-1.8 3.3-3.4 1.1 1.4
Pool Width ft 8.8 - 11.0 11.1-11.5 12.5 - 15.3 59.5 14.5 24.0
Riffle Width ft 9.9 - 15.8 12.2 -15.8 17.6 - 24.5 59.7 -64.9 13.1 24.0
Pool XS Areas 13.0 - 14.0 13.6 - 14.3 28.2 - 33.7 251.2 20.9 44.4
.y
Riffle XS Area (s
14.9 - 15.0
14.1 - 15.9
30.8 - 34.0
198 - 218
14.8
34.2
d Pool de th/mean riffle de th 0.9 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.2 1.2 - 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.4
~
O Pool width/riffle width 0.6 - 1.1 0.7 - 0.9 0.5 - 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0
Pool area/riffle area 0.9 0.9 - 1.0 0.8 - 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3
Max ool de th/dbkf 1.9 - 2.1 2.2 1.7 - 2.4 2.3 3.0 3.8
Bank Hei ht Ratio 1.2 - 2.4 1.0 - 1.7 1.0 - 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0
Mean Bankfull Veloci (V ( s 3.9 - 4.7 3.9 - 4.5 3.3 - 3.8 - 4.5 3.3
Bankfull Dischar a cfs 59 - 71 62 - 71 111 - 130 - 66 117
Meander len th Lm ft 90 - 191 90 - 191 * 51 - 54 90-191 ^ 20 - 228
Radius of curvature (Rd (ft 11 - 37 11 - 37 0 - 51 * 110 - 304 20-37 ^ 43 - 128
s:
Belt width Wb„ ft
21 - 58
21 - 58
13 - 43
193 - 500
32-58 ^
75 - 211
Meander width ratio wb„/Wbkf 1.3 - 5.8 1.3 - 4.7 0.5 - 2.4 3.0 - 8.4 2.4-4.4 3.0 - 8.4
Radius of curvature/bankfull width 0.7 - 3.7 0.7 - 3.0 0 - 2.9* 1.7 - 5.1 1.5-2.8 1.7 - 5.1
Meander len th/bankfitll width 5.7- 19.3 5.7 - 15.7 * 0.79 - 9.0 6.9-14.6 0.8 - 9.0
Valle sloe 0.025 0.025 0.010 0.008 0.025 0.010
Avera e water surface sloe 0.021 0.021 0.009 0.009 0.021 0.008
Riffle sloe 0.023 - 0.057 0.006 - 0.100 0.020 - 0.042 0.015 - 0.048 0.014-0.03 ^ 0.014 - 0.045
Pool slope 0.004 - 0.018 0.0001-0.002 0.002 - 0.006 0- 0.004 0.004-
0.009^ 0- 0.004
Pool to ool s acin 60-65 90-130 95 116 - 323 54-126 ^ 45-136
,;; Pool len h 7 -13 4 - 36 29 - 53 - 14-47 ^ 21-105

0. Riffle slope/avg water surface
slo e 1.09 - 2.71 0.28 - 4.76 2.22 - 4.67 1.7 - 5.4 0.66-1.4 1.7-5.6
Pool slo a/av water surface sloe 0.19 - 0.86 0.004 - 0.095 0.22 - 0.67 0 - 0.5 0.19 0 - 0.5
Run slo a/av water surface sloe - - - 0.2 - 3.7 - 0.2 - 3.6
Run de th/dbkr - - - - - -
Pool len th/hankfull width 0.4 - 1.3 0.2 - 2.9 1.18 - 3.01 - 0.23-1.06 0.87-4.40
Pool to pool spacing/bankfull
width 3.7 - 6.5 5.6 - 10.6 1.8-5.4 1.7-5.4 4.1-9.6 1.8-5.6
* The existing stream has been channelized and does not have a natural meander pattern with distinct pool
and riffle features.
* * The design cross-section criteria for UTl were developed using an analytical design approach.
^ The pattern and profile data for UTlwere derived from stable enhancement reaches from the existing
UT 1 data.
19

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
7.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
With respect to sediment transport in fluvial systems, there is a threshold level of bedload movement that
will result in a noticeable change in the channel bed. The flow associated with this threshold movement
is the reference condition upon which that sediment transport analysis is based. In natural streambeds,
there are particles of a wide range of sizes. At low flow levels, only the smallest particles will move, with
the larger particles resisting the flow of the stream. This is the condition of partial sediment transport. As
the stream flow increases, eventually every particle on the streambed will show threshold movement; this
is the condition of full sediment transport.
In order to analyze the existing sediment conditions within the project streams, the bar and bulk sampling
methods were utilized at UTl and UTCC. In addition, the streams were sampled by the pebble count
method at five riffle sites along UT1 and six riffle sites along UTCC for trend analysis. These data are
provided in Appendix G. The mean channel shear stresses and shear velocities were calculated for the
existing conditions. Determinations of the design shear stresses and velocities were then made based on
the sediment distribution from the surface, subsurface, and depositional feature sampling.
After analyzing the existing sediment conditions, the site was studied with respect to sediment transport
in UTCC-US. UTCC-US is an active bed channel and has been designed as such. In active bed systems,
there is a threshold level of bedload movement. At low flow levels, only the smallest particles will move,
with the larger particles resisting the flow of the stream; this is the condition of partial sediment transport.
As the stream flow increases, eventually every particle on the streambed will show threshold movement.
This is the condition of full sediment transport. If the largest particle that moves during a bankfull event
can be identified, then the flow conditions that produced this movement can be determined and this flow
condition (channel competency) can be used in the design of the restored stream.
These shear stresses were validated for the proposed riffle cross-section and channel gradient using the
equation:
ti = yRs
Where: i =shear stress (lbs/ftz)
y =specific gravity of water (62.41bs/ft3)
R =hydraulic radius (ft)
s =average water slope (ft/ft)
For UTCC, the target shear stress value (0.72 lbs/ftz) converted to a shear velocity for the design riffle
cross-section was u* = 0.58 m/s. This velocity is sufficient to move the sampled d84 particle size (110
mm) and provide adequate channel maintenance (based on the collected sediment data), while
maintaining the vertical stability of the UTCC. The sediment competence calculation forms are included
in Appendix K.
7.3 Wetland Hydrologic Modification
Hydrologic modifications will focus on restoring hydrology to the proposed wetland restoration areas and
improving the hydroperiod of enhancement areas. Currently, ditches in the proposed wetland restoration
areas drain the surface water directly into UTCC. The ditches prevent surface water from remaining on-
site and recharging groundwater. These ditches will be filled and stabilized to allow longer retention times
and reduce/eliminate shallow groundwater loss from the area. The restoration and enhancement actions
for the wetlands are shown in Figure 11.
20

i
•
- Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
. 7.3.1 Narrative of Modifications to Proposed Wetlands
To restore and enhance the wetlands, several ditches will be filled to block water from draining the site.
Ditch plugs will be placed in the existing ditch outlets. In addition to blocking the major outlets from the
- site, KCI will also recreate wetland microtopography for the proposed Southern Appalachian Bog wetland
- area. The site will be graded to form small depressions and rises throughout the site that resemble the
minor variations in elevation found in natural wetland systems. These modifications will allow
precipitation and overland flow to remain on the wetland site. The removal of the ditches will also allow
• the groundwater level to rise. These actions are shown in Figure 11.
Proposed Wetland 1 - 0. S acre of preservation
- Wetland 1 has adequate wetland hydrology and is an intact Swamp Forest-Bog Complex. The proposed
. stream design will go through this wetland and the preservation wetland will be limited to areas outside of
the stream buffer.
- Proposed Wetland 2 -1.0 acre of restoration
Wetland 2 is approximately 1.0 acres and contains approximately 18 inches of overfill soil. The hydric
Nikwasi soil exists below the overfill soil. The restoration will involve excavating approximately 2,500
- cubic yards of soil to restore the wetland. Following excavation, the site will be graded to allow water to
- spread across the wetland. Wetland 2 will be restored to a Southern Appalachian Bog Community.
Proposed Wetland 3 - 3.0 acres of restoration
• Wetland 3 has two drainage features located on the southern and eastern edges of the property that drain
water directly to UTCC-US. This wetland restoration will involve filling the two existing ditches to
provide hydrology to the wetland. Wetland 3 will be restored to a Southern Appalachian Bog Community.
- Proposed Wetland 4 - 2.7 acres of restoration and enhancement
Wetland 4 is approximately 2.7 acres and contains approximately 24 inches of overfill soil. The
restoration will involve excavating approximately 3,500 cubic yards of soil to restore the wetland. An
. existing ditch will be filled to restore the hydrology in the wetland along with the removal of an existing
wellhead, which will allow existing hillside seeps to spread across the site. Wetland 4 will be restored to a
Southern Appalachian Bog Community.
- Proposed Wetland S - 0.7 acre of restoration and enhancement
Wetland 5 will benefit from filling two ditches along with the additional hydrologic input from Wetland
- 4. Wetland 5 will be a Swamp Forest-Bog Complex.
• Proposed Wetland 6 - 2.0 acres of preservation
Wetland 6 will preserve approximately 2.0 acres of Swamp Forest-Bog Complex wetland along the
• floodplain of UTCC-DS.
Proposed Wetland 7 - 3.9 acres of restoration and enhancement
The actions for Wetland 7 will involve filling a ditch, removing existing fill and debris, and removing a
- culvert that currently drains the site. Existing seep heads will also be developed in order to allow water to
distribute evenly down the slope. A portion of Wetland 7 has adequate wetland hydrology and an intact
forest community. This area will be enhanced by removing species such as green ash and red maple and
. increasing the diversity by planting additional hardwood species. The removal of these species will
• benefit the adjacent Southern Appalachian Bog Community by preventing these early successional
species from spreading into the bog. Wetland 7 will be restored and enhanced to a Montane Alluvial
Forest wetland.
- 21

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
Proposed Wetland 8 - 0.5 acre of restoration and creation
The mitigation activities in Wetland 8 will involve removing soil and exposing groundwater springs to
create additional Southern Appalachian Bog wetland along with planting bog wetland species.
Proposed Wetland 9 - 2.2 acres of preservation
The existing Southern Appalachian Bog wetland has wetland hydrology and intact vegetation. No
hydrologic alterations will take place in this preservation area on the western side of the project site.
7.4 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Restoring natural vegetation will focus primarily on the Southern Appalachian Bog and Swamp Forest-
Bog Complex areas as well as the UT1 and UTCC floodplains. These areas will receive species
consistent with the associated community. The typical Southern Appalachian Bog Community is
permanently saturated to intermittently dry. Vegetation consists of an open shrub layer with areas
dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The Swamp Forest-Bog Complex Community is seasonally to
semipermanently saturated. The vegetation consists of a forest community with closed or open canopy
and a dense shrub layer with open, boggy areas (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
7.4.1 Planting Zones
Six planting zones will be incorporated into the planting plan. Zone A is classified as a Stream Zone Area,
which consists of the UT1 and UTCC-US stream banks. Zone B is the Swamp Forest-Bog Floodplain
Planting Area, which will cover the UT1 floodplain. Zone C is classified as a Southern Appalachian Bog
Floodplain Planting Area, which consists of the current existing cropland areas located in UTCC-US area.
Zone D is classified as Southern Appalachian Bog Planting Area in an open herbaceous planting area
located adjacent to UTCC-US. Zone E is classified as Montane Alluvial Forest Planting Area, located at
the southwestern portion of the site. Zone E-1 contains 100 stems/acre for the enhancement area while
Zone E-2 contains 436 stems/acre for the restoration area. Zone F is classified as Southern Appalachian
Bog Planting Area in the creation and restoration areas at the southwestern portion of the project site.
Plan Sheet 15 illustrates the six zones that will be used to target the riparian vegetation planting.
During the NHP site review in 1989, a list of Southern Appalachian Bog species was compiled (Appendix
A). The species chosen for Zones C, D, and F were selected from the NHP site review list along with
suitable wetland vegetation (NCNHP, 1989).
7.4.2 Plant List
Plantings shall consist of the following native species based on availability during the time of planting. In
general, the six planting zones will consist of the following species groupings:
Zone A: Stream Zone (Livestakes) (2.0 acres)
436 stems/acre
Black Willow Salix nigra OBL
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis FACW-
Silky Willow Salix sericea OBL
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum FACW+
Zone B: Swamp Forest Bo Fg ioodplain Plantin Area (2.5 acres)
436 stems/acre
Spicebush Lindera benzoin FACW
Hazel Alder Alnus serrulata FACW
Sweet Birch Betula lenta FACU
22

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site

Common Winterberry Ilex verticillata FACW
Possumhaw Viburnum nudum FACW+
Zone C: Southern App alachian Bo Fg loodplain Planting _Area (3.9 acres)
436 stems/acre
Spicebush Lindera benzoin FACW
Hazel Alder Alnus serrulata FACW
Red Chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia FACW
Swamp Rose Rosa palustris OBL
Common Winterberry Ilex verticillata FACW
Zone D: Southern Appalachian Bog Planting Area (6.7 acres)
436 stems/acre
Maleberry Lyonia ligustrina FACW
Swamp Rose Rosa palustris OBL
Green Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens OBL
Nutsedge Cyperus esculentus FACW
Herbaceous vegetation to be planted in Zone D shall consist of the following:
Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea OBL
Spotted Jewelweed Impatiens capensis FACW
Soft Rush Juncus effusus FACW+
Prickly Bog Sedge Carex atlantica FACW
Zone E-1: Montane Alluvial Forest Planting Area (3.7 acres)
100 stems/acre
Spicebush
River Birch
Hazel Alder
American Hornbeam
Lindera benzoin
Betula nigra
Alnus serrulata
Carpinus caroliniana
FACW
FACW
FACW
FAC
Zone E-2: Montane Alluvial Forest Planting Area (0.2 acres)
436 stems/acre
Spicebush
River Birch
Hazel Alder
American Hornbeam
Lindera benzoin
Betula nigra
Alnus serrulata
Carpinus caroliniana
FACW
FACW
FACW
FAC
Zone F: Southern Appalachian Bog Planting_Area (0.5 acres)
436 stems/acre
Maleberry Lyonia ligustrina FACW
Swamp Rose Rosa palustris OBL
Green Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens OBL
Nutsedge Cyperus esculentus FACW
Herbaceous vegetation to be planted in Zone D shall consist of the following:
Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea OBL
23

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
Spotted Jewelweed Impatiens capensis FACW
Soft Rush Juncus effusus FACW+
Prickly Bog Sedge Carex atlantica FACW
In addition, the following native grasses will be planted within the limits of disturbance and shall consist
of a mix that may include:
Bluestem Andropogon glomeratus
Deertongue Panicum clandestinum
Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum
Virginia Wildrye Elymus virginicus
Rye grain (Secale cereale) and/or brown top millet (Pennisetum glaucum) will be used for temporary
stabilization.
Woody vegetation planting shall take place during the dormant season (October-April).
7.4.3 On-site Invasive Species Management
The project site has been affected by several nonnative plant species in the existing Swamp Forest-Bog
Complex and Montane Alluvial Forest communities. The most significant invasive species is multiflora
rose (Rosa mult~ora). Invasive species management will take place in October-November, which is the
ideal time to target these species, and will focus on removing multiflora rose. These species will be
marked and treated with a glyphosate herbicide. Native grass cover will be retained to the maximum
extent possible during the construction process to minimize the amount of bare soil available to invasive
plants.
8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Monitoring shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability and riparian stream bank
vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established restoration
objectives. Specifically, project success will be assessed utilizing measurements of stream dimension,
pattern, and profile, site photographs, and vegetation sampling.
8.1 Stream Stability
The purpose of monitoring is to evaluate the stability of the restored stream. Following the procedures
established in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites (Harrelson, et.al, 1994)
and the methodologies utilized in the Rosgen stream assessment and classification system (Rosgen, 1994
and 1996), data collected will consist of detailed dimension and pattern measurements, longitudinal
profiles, and bed materials sampling. Width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, meander width ratio, radius
of curvature (on newly constructed meanders during ls` year monitoring only), pool-to-pool spacing and
the average, riffle and pool water slopes will be calculated from the collected data. Pebble count data will
be plotted by size distribution in order to assess the D50 and D84 size class. During the third and fifth
years of monitoring, BEHI data will be collected along the project stream to aid in the assessment of
stream stability.
Dimension -Both UTCC-US and UT1 will be monitored with seven permanent cross-sections each. The
two reaches will each have five riffles and two pool cross-sections. Permanent monuments will be
established by conventional survey. The cross-section surveys shall provide a detailed measurement of
the stream and banks, to include points on the adjacent floodplain, at the top of bank, bankfull, at all
breaks in slope, the edge of water, and thalweg. Subsequently, width/depth ratios and entrenchment ratios
will be calculated for each cross-section.
24

i
. Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
• Cross-section measurements should show little or no change from the as-built cross-sections. If changes
do occur, they will be evaluated to determine whether they are minor adjustments associated with settling
and increased stability or whether they indicate movement toward an unstable condition.
• Pattern -Measurements associated with the restored channel pattern shall be taken on the section of the
stream included in the longitudinal profiles. These will include belt width, meander length, and radius of
curvature. Subsequently, sinuosity, meander width ratio, radius of curvature, and meander length/bankfull
- width ratio will be calculated.
Profile -Longitudinal profiles will be conducted on the entire length for both UTl and UTCC-US.
- Measurements will include slopes (average, pool, riffle) as well as calculations of pool-to-pool spacing.
- Annual measurements should indicate stable bedform features with little change from the as-built survey.
The pools should maintain their depth with lower water surface slopes, while the riffles should remain
shallower and steeper.
Bed Materials -Pebble counts will be conducted at each representative cross-section for the purpose of
repeated classification and to evaluate sediment transport.
- Photograph Reference Points -Ten photograph reference points (PRP) will be established to assist in
characterizing the site and to allow qualitative evaluation of the site conditions. The location and
- bearing/orientation of each photo point will be permanently marked in the field and documented to allow
- for repeated use.
Cross-section Photograph Reference Points -Each cross-section will be photographed to show the form
- of the channel with the tape measure stretched over the channel for reference in each photograph. Effort
will be made to consistently show the same area in each photograph.
- Longitudinal Photograph Reference Points -Additional PRPs will be located, as needed, to document
• the condition of specific in-stream structures such as cross vanes, rock sills, and enhanced riffles.
8.2 Stream Riparian Vegetation
. The success of the riparian buffer plantings will be evaluated using two ten by ten meter vegetative
sampling plots along UT1 and three vegetative sampling plots along UTCC-US (5% of the total buffer
area). The corners of each monitoring plot will be permanently marked in the field. The monitoring will
- consist of a physical inventory within each plot and a subsequent statistical analysis in order to determine
- the following: composition and number of surviving species and total number of stems per acre.
Additionally, a photograph will be taken of each plot that will be replicated each monitoring year.
Riparian vegetation must meet a minimum survival success rate of 320 stems/acre after five years. If
• monitoring indicates that the specified survival rate is not being met, appropriate corrective actions will
be developed to include invasive species control, the removal of dead/dying plants, and replanting.
• 8.3 Wetland Hydrology
Groundwater elevations will be monitored to evaluate the attainment of jurisdictional wetland hydrology.
Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data collected within
- the project wetland. Within the restoration area, 6 automatic recording gauges will be established to
- ensure adequate coverage per the 8 acres of wetland restoration on the project site. Daily data will be
collected from the automatic gauges over the 5-year monitoring period following wetland construction.
- Wetland hydrology will be considered established if well data from the site indicate that groundwater is
within 12 inches of the soil surface for 5% of the growing season during normal weather conditions. The
growing season was taken from Ashe County; the elevation for Alleghany County was approximately
- 1,000 feet difference in elevation than the project site. According to the NRCS, the growing season is
• 25

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
considered to be the period with a 50% probability that the daily minimum temperature is higher than 28°
F. The growing season for Ashe County extends from May 2 to October 5 for a total of 157 days (USDA,
NRCS 1985). Based on this growing season, success will be achieved at the project site if the water table
is within 12 inches of the soil surface for 8 consecutive days or more during the growing season.
8.4 Wetland Vegetation
The success criteria for the planted species in the wetland restoration area will be based on survival and
growth. Beginning at the end of the first growing season, the vegetation will be monitored for five years
following the planting.
Three permanent monitoring plots measuring ten by ten meters will be established in the wetland
restoration area exceeding the 2% monitoring coverage of the total restoration acreage. Plots will be
systematically located to ensure even placement. Data will be collected at each plot for: total number of
stems, species, percent survival, height, estimated percent cover of all species, and evidence of insects,
disease or browsing. Survival of planted species must be 320 stems/acre at the end of five years of
monitoring. Non-target species must not constitute more than 20% of the woody vegetation based on
permanent monitoring plots. Management actions such as controlling invasive species, removing
dead/dying plants and replanting will be undertaken as necessary.
8.5 Schedule/Reporting
The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project
completion. Monitoring shall subsequently be conducted annually for a total period of five years or until
the success criteria are met.
Annual monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted after all monitoring tasks for each year are
completed. Each report will provide the new monitoring data and compare the new data against previous
findings. The monitoring report will be submitted to the EEP according to the description in the most
current version of "Content, Format and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports."
26

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
9.0 REFERENCES
Alleghany County GIS, 2005. Aerial Photography.
Ashe County U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Historical Aerial Photographs.
1941, 1964, 1976, and 1982.
Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J. R. Everhart, and
R.E. Smith 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. Edited by D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy.
American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 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.
NCDENR. Division of Water Quality. 2005. New River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
http: //h2o. enr. state. nc.us/c su/swc. html.
NCDENR. Division of Water Quality. 2007. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by
Subbasin. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/OS-07-03.pdf
NCDENR. Basinwide Planning Program: October 2005 New River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/New.htm
NCDENR. Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Restoration Program 2001. "Guidelines for Riparian
Buffer Restoration." Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. Division of Water Quality. 2006. Surface Water Classification.
http://h2o.enr. state.nc.us/csu/swc.html.
NCNHP. 1989. Ennice Meadow Bog. Site Survey Report
NCNHP. 2006. County and Quad Species Listings
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina
NCGS. 2004. Division of Land Resources. Physiography of North Carolina.
NCWRC. Fact Sheet, 2006. Bog Turtle.
http://216.27.49.98/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/nongame_bogturtle_lores.pdf
Orme S., S. Kegley, 2006. PAN Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network, North America San
Francisco, CA. http:www.pesticideinfo.org
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
27

Restoration Plan UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. In: Wang, S.S.Y.,
E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Management of
Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12-22.
Rosgen, D.L. 1998. The Reference Reach - a Blueprint for Natural Channel Design. Presented at ASCE
Conference, Denver, CO -June, 1998.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
3rd Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, NCDEHNR, Division of Parks and
Recreation. Raleigh, NC.
Shiels, Andrew L. 1997-2007. Bog Turtles Slipping Away. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission,
Nongame and Endangered Species Unit.
USACE 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of Alleghany County, North Carolina.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Soil Survey of Ashe County, North Carolina.
USDA, NRCS, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed July 2007. Official Soil Series Descriptions.
http://soils.usda.gov/technicaUclassification/osd/index.html.
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc. 2004. Little River and Laurel Branch Local Watershed Plans. Phase 1
-Watershed Characterization, Preliminary Findings and Recommendations Report.
Virginia Tech Weed Identification Guide. Department of Plan Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science.
http://www.ppws.vt.edu/scott/weed_id/veram.htm
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release
55.
USGS. 1993 and 1998. Digital Orthoquadrangle, Cumberland Knob Quadrangle.
28

•••••••••s•~•••••••••••••~••••••••••••••••••
~.

erg„
0
,. ~~:
~~.~'.' ,ns~~~
Other Streams w~F
I ~:~.~~~
K
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~.~~ ~~ 1 inch equals 500 feet
Sop 250 0 500
Lnugr Su~uxr. Allr,yhanr C2unmGlS. Onh~~b,rgtr~-r~005 Fect
r~
.~}
~~ Le~~
~ ,~ ~4~~ ~u~,~A~~

VIRGINIA
Alleghany
North Carolina

~./
Figure 2. Vicinity Map
Project Site Location
~~ Major Rivers
Major Roads
Other Roads
Cities and Towns
ASSQCIATES (~F NC ~ County Boundaries
r
r
VIRGINIA
ALLEGHANY
ASHE SURRY
WILKES
w~E
1:95,040
I inch equals 1.5 miles
1 0.5 0 1
Miles
r~
,~
,,~cos~stem
PROGRAM

a - 1'~,~ ~ +t 6 (~ , `1i. \ -.ir ~~ i -. '0 `"t,l' ~ I ~ t ~~' `. ~ ,~ ~ ~~ l~~ t l 1.,~~~
1 1
.' ~f a, . ~' ~ rpy\ (._. + ~ ~';a. ~~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ I t ~ ~_~ ~_ -.. ~ I : ~~~ ~ r .' ~ I~. y ~//„~;y"r....~' - TS
i c
_ ~_,/'~ i •t~ I'iQ~ I ,`ice '~ ~t) ! i5~t~~ W~_~ 1 `~' Y6T .+~1' t ~ _. ~~,o:
,.
`:~ ' t i ~; :, ~~; .' i " `.~ E ~~~ t .' ,' r' ' ~ • Geer`
' ~ r p~~' . ~ r ~ '` u r ~J ` ~ k~ ~-
;,t, y 1 f~ ^ti ..tea
q , ' .:f a
.fir. I ~~I_r I F l.~ ,~ ~~~~ ~2.~( ~f ~ ~~ ~~~ 1^ ~ ) ~r~,t6T& ~~~ ~ ~ J
' 1 ~Il~,/I ; ~I~ j I ~ i f ' 1 4 I ~ ,f ,I ~( ( f , ~~ ~~~ 5 ~~~, 1 I 1 I ~ \ ~
,` '
--~ . `. . t (~ • r -a1, ~ , ' _ ~ ~ ~ s; Su.a,vrtn r, ~ ~.'NURT ; CA$~7.INA
-1. 1~ 5( ~~~i ~ fy" ~ ' t~~ '-ir ~, t~ r~ vl ~~ ~ ~mo~ids ~ ~ ~ `s 't
~~`:., !~ I~ ~ `'' ';\ 5, y ~~ t' ~ i ;,~----~ ~ is 1 / !~ ~. >,, ~ _ ~` ...
j • 49: l ~''' ~. a o.~
t J 7 i ... I ; _ 2636 i - ~-`.." ~ l _._ ) ;
r
`t x s /
1 ~.. - r t ~k'{ ....
`_
4 ~ y_~ JaIS~~ ~t r;~r /~i ~~VI~ ~ '~t r 1 ~~YYf f~~ ~~x06 ~ ` ~ ~ .~ 5. '~ L
,. 1
--~ ., '
! ~
- ,. ~ / v _
r
a. ,f;=f ~_'.^J. ~! ,-~ ~: jrl, ~ti /~ ~_ .~~ 1~ i'" ~~t ~ ~% ~.J '/r o'..v~~ r ~ F
' d:
.~~ I~n r, $ .\`y ` -. k ~# j'`r/-',3~.f ~l ~ ~ r~C_r ~. l ~ i ~L ~i"i~'F• ~~ ..., .,~ .
per, ,r' r -.
,ia \~~ "tom ~ ~ T .:`,rte g~: ti5 1 _ ~ - , ~ ;~ /r /I - I '~^ _ "`+ti }-~ ~. ' .
Y..
Figure 3. Project Watershed
~ Project Watershed (2.64 sq. miles) ~`
~~ 14-digit HUC Boundaries (North Carolina)
~°y ,
12-digit HUC Boundaries (Virginia) ~" ~ S~SteII]
~~CO ~ "
124,000 ~ '
~/ PFO)0CY StP0ari1S I inch equals 2,000 feet " `°
ASSOCIATES OF NC z,ooo I,ooo o z,ooo
Feet
linage Source: USGS Topogruphte Quadrangle, Cumberland Krvob 1977

~.ui
r"~ ~
~
~~I
4
4 =. W
~
~
~I
R
~4
e

.III 4'~~II ~ x '.,
~'
IYll~r
~.
..
~~I
'~" "
'
~ I
I~h ~
.
1
l~r tl

Ilil
VIII
IUIII
IV '.~.
~
I
a,ILIII
F
s
k ~,.... ;~ F . .
"
l
I
~•

?

~ .. .c '
~%~
~

. ...
?
~

~ r l-w.u ,t..,~ ' ~ - ,,.,
~, ~
,_..xa~ ~1'~I~f ~`L~'~~I y~ fit!
~
r
- i ~
~
_. ~
~~~ but ~~Ilh~ -"
a~
a= !•
~ ~, ~ ,
r
i 43i
x _
_ ~;
,~
;~ ~~ ~
";
Figure 4C. Historic Aerial 1976
Pro'ect Bounda
J n'
~co stein
i:ia,ooo ? ~fl~°(`l~l
I ,.n n~.izn a+
1 inch equals 1,000 feet
ASSOCIATES Of~ NC ~,ooo soo o ~,ooo
linage Sauce: USDA, 7976 Feet

~',. ~ do
a~
' R

i p ~~ ~ 4'
{4 _ ~ t4 ~
N. FA ~~~R q
k, ~ ~"~. ~
. ~'..
~- ~ ~~ f
k d! ~ ~ t W,'

r
i ~y .~`
.
r~ ~~
k ~ ~
~ ~ }
~ `
«;
~~

c
~~f

T ~ ~ ~

s d.~q ~ m

,., ., . q
W
t s b~,

t ~ ~ - ~ ~ _ -
4
n
A
s

~

a4 'al. # ~ f' Y

,~~ ~
~. i.,

~. Kw
`,~. ~
y,
~
r
~ .~:
fi
.a .~' ~. - ~ r
lr~"; ~ ,~ 'fir ~ ;°~_'°-~i,~ 'p ~~ ~C~ -
~~
w ~ ~.~ ~.=
,.
..
"'M ~`
~u
~,~ _ ~ r w s
Figure 4F. Historic Aerial 1998
~~
Project Boundary
w~E ~{, , m
~.~~~ -~cosyste
1 inch equals 1,000 feed
ASSOCIATES OF NC i,ooo soo o ~,ooo~
/mage Source: USGS DOQ Cumberland K~~uh 1998

.,
4 n ~'"
~ a~r
s " # r -~
~n
~.
„~,. ~n *~ ~ - ,.
. ,
r.
„.
»~ ~;:
,, ..
,~M _~
:, ~-
.,,
~;.
_ ~i.~ ...~, ~a .'; ~ .r.: , r .~.. ~. ~; ~'~:~ ,' ,~~c ~. °" ;fir
~~ ~ ``.
~~~ . ,I

A
4ti,
I'A
y�
J�
A,
"-I "
XS
11L
ics ig XS 7�
PRO 10 XS 17 i(S 160
X8 22
X8*21 0
Ag
wmmmmmmw*� Figure 5. Existing Conditions
MMMNV4��
---------- A6_
XS
0,4,
71 "Ilk
71
Project Boundary CulveTted Road Crossing *Weiland calculatiom am based mi a prcl�iary
delineation by KC1 and are dependerit on
Existing Weiland con
ON'.0 Project Streams ettrrmce from the USACE.
Other Streams Hydric Soils
in Ditches Hydric Soils within 18-24" overburden
Cross -Section
N
K C I Longitudinal Profile 1:6,000
Power Line I inch equals 500 feet
ASSOCIATE OF NC 500 250 0 Soo
I1,nqiteSou­A11eghany County GIS, Orthoinragery2l?05 Feet
PRO 6
-'o PRO'
(.�7�
P
X5111
X3 14
r
't e�l
11L
ics ig XS 7�
PRO 10 XS 17 i(S 160
X8 22
X8*21 0
Ag
wmmmmmmw*� Figure 5. Existing Conditions
MMMNV4��
---------- A6_
XS
0,4,
71 "Ilk
71
Project Boundary CulveTted Road Crossing *Weiland calculatiom am based mi a prcl�iary
delineation by KC1 and are dependerit on
Existing Weiland con
ON'.0 Project Streams ettrrmce from the USACE.
Other Streams Hydric Soils
in Ditches Hydric Soils within 18-24" overburden
Cross -Section
N
K C I Longitudinal Profile 1:6,000
Power Line I inch equals 500 feet
ASSOCIATE OF NC 500 250 0 Soo
I1,nqiteSou­A11eghany County GIS, Orthoinragery2l?05 Feet
PRO 6
-'o PRO'
(.�7�
P
X5111
X3 14
r
Xs is
M
E
IF,V Ilem
a a
el
5H
PROGRAM

~~ -:-~
~~~
...
y~~ :, .~.
~~
~~, ~ - ~t,
~~
tiv.~ _, a.~ ~~~
~.
~.~.
~-
~,„. ~ °~
} - "'
,,
.r
`~~- ..~
.~.
.4
,~ "'' :~~
+~,, ~...
?~` a.
Form YV7
'~~~
~;,
r
~'
~,
"~'
o~z
VY9
-- ~ ~.
~NCs9

Fes; J. +'i`s Yu,h~'.. ~~ VIM.
~F e~
~u, _ - 1, d'~ * s "G.
itT t~'"N ~~^wti~' ,~ ~•k' IEw" 5~ +~~ ' ~ .~
,q•
r
~. , ~ ~ ~'~
w ~.. ~~,
*~
~ ~ ~~
} ~». `~ ,
y ._. ~ro~%
r... #~ C
~. ~
~ ~;,,•„
..y M~E
~r~ ~~d td~~' yl ~~
~I ~~ ~''~ ~~.ti ` ~- .~:
° ~W
_ ~
~ ~
- +ers ~, 4 ~^'
~', ~
i
~ a,,~~
'' '~ ~
r.` ..
}
a ^ ` '~ "~
"* ..~ .
Existing
'S =+~ Wetland #7
~ -A<.,
~ ~" T
#6
Existing
Wetland #5
ya y.
u
~ ,,~~,~
~'
r
- Existing
Wetland #2
Wetland #3 ~-..
a ~-' "Y '+
Nletland #8 .., ' '~ ~ ~'.
~ ~ ~t 1'mr. ..
a' ~ Y r -~+f A ~1w~M° S.
,. c~ ~
~~~~ `'. n ° d~31 >be ''.o+°~qt '~x `k `~ p~,~, * ~ "t ~ ~ ~• ,, ~' rt ~~"t a~F~~a '" at • , ~ ~, .'I .~, ~~ '!
Figure 7. Existing Natural Communities
Cropland -Fallow (17.0 ac) Project Boundary ~ ~
-Hillside Scepagc (I.0 ac) • Reference Wetland Location
Montane Alluvial Forest (10.4 ac) ~~ Existing Streams , ~(t p
~~`` Southern Appalachian Bog (3.8 ac) ~ Existing Wetland ~{~~V~ J`~111
33 ~r.~~ i
Swamp Forest-Bog Complex (10.4 ac) l.e o00 ~ ~~,~ ~~~
ASS~~LIAl~S ~~~. ~~ WhilC Pine Forost (4.0 ac) I inch equals 500 feet
SUO 350 0 5(IU
h.o-,K"-,5,.,.» r_ All ghom t'~uurcr G/.C Orrhonn"~gen ?Oa9 FcCI

L~ ~' J
t "~~
~ ~;y'
AVERY
COUNTY
'~~
`_ _, _ . ~ 3
m
A
d
N
~/.
I
~~
I`
i~
g
PS
r
Bf/SI0/
~ C
A ~ Q~y y,_...__ ^ .
d CALDWELL
COUNTY
,''~ .tf
z

ASHE
STATE OF
TENNESSEE WATAUGA
4° r z~
BURKE ~'`e
COUNTY m r,} `9c, o~~, _ ~ AVERY
b 2 PP¢ e`e ~ MITCHELL
e,~
YANCEY CALDWELL
BURKE
Figure 8. Reference Site Vicinity Map (Lost Cove Creek)
r~
Project Site Location
Roads ~~` ~'~COS~Stell~
County Boundaries 1:63,360 ~` ~ ~ , r,^
ASSOCIATES OF NC > inch equals I mikes
I 0.5 0 I
Miles
Avery and Caldwell Counties, North Carolina

:.,?'" ~';,y i' .,n a) ~. ...,~ i . j• t ,I i a; ~ ~ w R ~~ y ~:!' Y y r za '^•p'»;F
W 1 1-yN~ ~) I~ ~ 1 \ry ~ I
f .t '~ y? y~~ ~ 1 I l ~ - r \t
i ,~ ., ~
,~o~ y~
~ d ...~ 7 1 'tt~~ r' ,. w ~ z s ,, i y 1
Q' i J .~i~ r < N..a.~otMi ~` ) inn ] .,c„a -~'"kkF+ir~.mp _ ~ (.. Y
~ ~. r ( ya s
r~ i . ~ ~ , yb 1 ~ ~ ,. r `y
rrrr '~' 4y
~~a- J~ ."6 .'t II LC ~r~~~'. ~ r I ~ ~ ~.- ~, ~ l'',' I," .rt ~ a
u. ue ..
li ,
,'
`~
'~ ii'~ f ^ ~ \ $ L~ ~"'} ~ i I ~ l~ i'~ ~ N ~ p„y„~ rf, rS A' 1;
Newland.. v._f _ +~ ~ ,,.*~ V ~ !~ ~» Mcumu.
o Qua'0' ~ 'r~ wrrens r..o3~s v ^ ~ - ~ ~ X
~ ~~ I ~~ ~ xN1tl Mp~ It ' ~. ,~} ~r~y,r.
1 V +t ~
~~IY~F~ ~ , ~'a t' { ; of I~ ~ t
yy ` I ~,.. ., ~i G ~
,> •I ~_ ~ w
~~'' ~ .,6 a i.*aogt ~, 1 R{wd ~~I r~ r - OQ~` ~~ 1 I ~~ -
0 '~J ~ y ~. ,...1. ~ r` ef~'1 - ~Y. ~ ptil~ ISM/ i ~~
Asti ...~ a k, ~ ~ ~ a ~r 1~5~ `~ ~ ,4
.;
s ~ ~,~' } -: ~ yr, ~ ~
~- -+r fps ~
K ~ ~~ ~ ~ r r - ' y„ Grandfather Mountain ~ ~ ,R ' ,.~ ~ s
Quad ,
r, a g~ Chesnut ~~I~_ ~'
Mountain
' - - ~
~, I ~ r
,, ,
e ~ ,
- ,r
t y ,
Fal's .. .r r. ~ Ii rqz:. -'~ •~nm.. s
ituad o `'
~,
i'.
Figure 9. Reference Site Watershed (Lost Cove Creek)
Lost Cove Creek (Reference Reach) ~-
Reference Site Watershed (24.8 sy. miles)
w~'
14-digit HUC Boundaries ~~~~~}~~~
1:54,000 1,
Quadrangle Boundaries i ~~~n e~~ai. asnu ree~ ~ ' ~' r, I
4,500 2,250 0 4,SW
ASSOCIATES OF NC ~~"`
Lrmgr Sucre r: USGS Tupogrzrphi< Uuodrunglr,. (6csonn Afuunmin (19661.
Grmrdfaher Mm~ni~ 1978), Lirn~ill,• Fnll.~ Ngsbl, and NeIlJnnd 1197X)

cec
_~
WaE
CeC
i
I '~'~.GE~
!!/ FnE2
/ ~~
/~ i
Cx I
~ ~ v~ ~"
j 1 I TaC
~~ ~ WaE
i + -"
~ _.
~'° ` _ ,,
~_, ~,r:a ~ WaE
-" __
>.
f ,~ ,
?` ~ ~
~ ,
-"
~, ~ + ~
WsF TaC
~.~..•i„'.~ ~ TaD ~ ~'-
+ ) GE .CeC
.' C F t
~ ~
-- a
+ /
' ~ ~~' `. ~~ WaE
,_ ~ .:.
r' .' ! CaC ~ ~ _ ~
CeE ~ WaE ~ ~ ~~ /
Figure 10. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey
Project Boundary ~ w~
~,~ Project Streams
Other Streams w~ E ~ ~ ~C~USySteI1
` ^€
1:6,000 ~,. ~~,
I inch equals 500 feet
ASSOCIATES OF NC soo zso v soo
Suurcr- Suf/ Surrr~~ ~/ A/leghuri~ Cuunt~,; Nor(h Carollm+ Feet
USDA, SCS l J73

,,,.,~
~~
~= ~,
~~r.
r :M~i~µ
~~~, ~ ,
w..,,
~"~ '~ .
r' g'
~_
a ~ °~,
t+ `
~.~~'
Figure I1. Proposed Stream and Wetland Design
Project Boundary _~+ Stream Bnhaneement II
® Wetland Creation (0.2 ac) ~'a q Stream Restoration
® Wetland Cnhancement (3.7 ac) ~~ Stream Preservation
Wetland Preservation (4.6 ac) -Montane Alluvial Forest
K ~ Wetland Restoration (7.9 ac) ,Southern Appalachian Bog
~ Ditches [o be filled ~ Swamp Forest-Bog Complex A
1:6,000 w4 ~F
30-ft Stream Buffer Y
ASSOCIATES OF NC Soo zsol incn equ•os soo reet soo
t,.a,g.•s„~,~~~_-m~,k~~.,,~~a,~,,,~,~,nr •.m, Feet
r~
1
~COS~SteI11
~Dl ill ~''
vanr:c,. .:.

•••••••••~••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••s•••

. *,
H.
.
~ ®~• w JL A ~ d 11
V JL d ll JL 1Le ®
®Il
1L JL Jl `t/ L JS Jl ~rAn axnACr Num °X~ T ,
r
:,~ .
:~ ~
y
Jl d , .C. D07027S 1 30
4~y~,
~~
i
k Try (~~T`yp/7~~~•p7~ry~•~~~~~,~y-~1~''~ *y A~ ApI ply ~/T~ ~ •p~'~, /r~^p. ^•,
~
~ ~
~
~~®
~
~
~®~
h ~~~ .i
i
Yl(kA~~Yx V~
L V UL JLd
~V
ILA\ V1Ld l'111Ld
JL
dll
"-O
~'' ~.::U •. ~, ~ A 6UfiMITfEGN11H RE6TO6ApN PLAX(8676) AUG 01
{ I
I
~
~
s1VYhm~.
~
~

M if
i ~
~__.~..-p r~=~ _ .I..__~~
ALLEGHA11tY COUNTY
~.
REwSN)x5
^
I t
O ...i
'`
PROJEC~
,~„
«,.~
i
.,
gyp
,rms. REACH
`•,, LOCATION: UT TO CRAB CREEK
,-,
~
'

,~. ,
~
~.:.. ENNICE, NORTH CAROLINA
~' TYPE OF WORK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION,
ENHANCEMENT, PRESER PATIO m

°~~ AND CREATION I N
~ \
VICINITY J-1L71" "
NOT TO SCALE
DIRECTIONS FROM RALEIGH:
PROCEED WESTONINTERSTATEdO (F40). CONTINUE ON ISO
WEST TOWARD WINSTON SALEM. TAKE EXIT 1938 (NGBNI
USS2N) TO MOUNTMRY. PROCEED ON 52N AND TAKE THE
E74W RAMP TO W7'iFiEVILLE 477. TAKE IXITB(BEFORE I-77
SOUiH), TURN LEFT ONTO NC-BB, AND PROCEED WEST ON
NCA9. TURN LEFT AT NGIBANO PROCEED APPROXIMATELY
6 MILES TO THE PROJECT SITE. THE CRAB CREEK PROJECT
SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH OF NG78. AN ALLEGHANY

~ CHRISTMAS TREE SIGN IS AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE PROJECT
SITE.
w m
N
O N

O

Q O

• ~ i~- sHE~ST,te J -
~E~Tt
o
RmRx oP sNEETS g~
•1 Tme surer _
•N GEA3RAL NOTES 6 PROJECT LEGEIItD __ _ _
-
~ ~• HEETS 6,11
~
•1 DETA/LS.• STREAAr RESL'ORATlON a
3
•21 DETARS.~TYPICAL CROSSSECTlONS \
~
i= a
3 SUMMARY SRE6f ,_
•47TIRU !0 PIAN AAB) PROPILB SREETE O o ~ d
V I17ARU 1< STR&LN GEOMETRY ~
•1577IRU L PLINTA'G SRRBTS '~~`
22 7RAU 28 SEDIMENT 6 EROER)N CONTROL PLW - SHEET 19
• INCLUDED M RESTORA7RLY PLAN ~ _~
L~
P/epared fn fle Q'fipe dr PROJECT ENGINEER
Prgxrod far
GRAPHIC SCALES PROJECT DATA
~ ~~I f~eeociaEes
~0 -15 0 30 60 STREAM R ESTORATION LENGTH = 4
026 FEET of NOrE}L Caro inn
P.f~. ~'
STREA
E ,
NHAN
E ,
sulrE s7o LANDMARK CENTER u, afiolslr roRKS RD.. RALEICII, NC
~
PLANS M
C
MENT LENGTH = 583 FEET ~~ ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • ECOLOGISTS
STREAM PRESERVATION LENGTH = 2,172 FEET
-30 -15 0 30 60 '
r~. ~i
~
~~
n
WETLAND CREATION AREA - 0.2 ACRES
~ '~J
~"~
i rY t o J
O PROFILE (HORIZONTALS WETLAND RESTORATION AREA = 7.9 ACRES GARY M.MRYNCZA,P.E. Ll ~III~II.
LETTJNG DATE: ECrENGL1D781P
PRO

-4 -2 0 4 8 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREA = 3.7 ACRES J HARRYTSOMIDES
WETLAND PRESERVATION AREA = 4.7 ACRES APRIL DAWSlALEX FRENCH NceEP PROJEC7 ArAAMGER

V xAnmAL cNAAm~L DavcN SALEM MURTADA
PROFILE VERTICAL)
PJ~ NC6EP aevmw COORDINAiCIR
SIGNAiT/RE:

GENERAL NOTES
a
i
a
N
4~ W
k ~
a
GENERAL NOTES:
BEARING AND DISTANCES:
ALL BEARINGS ARE NAD 1963 GRID BEARINGS.
ALL DISTANCES AND COORDINATES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL (GROUND) VALUES.
ALL INFORMATION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING GPS CONTROL POINTS.
GPS#1 N=1026530.5926 E=1422346.3221 ELEV.=2671.39
GPS#2 N=1026131.5545 E=1422486.7356 ELEV.=2649.75
GPS#3 N=1027057.1177 E=1422711.6147 ELEV.=2619.16
GPS#4 N=1026547.7100 E=1422725.4800 ELEV.=2598.51
GPS#5 N=1025845.1323 E=1419923.0164 ELEV.=2542.79
GPS#6 N=1025962.9577 E=1419573.2655 ELEV.=2550.27
GRADING:
-ALL EXCAVATED MATERIALS, INCLUDING NATURAL STONE MEETING SIZE LIMITATIONS, ARE TO BE SALVAGED FOR REUSE
WITHIN THE PROJECT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DESIGNER.
-ALL INFLECTION POINTS BETWEEN SLOPE ANGLES SHALL BE ROUNDED SLIGHTLY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR SMOOTH
TRANSITIONS AND A MORE NATURAL APPEARANCE.
UTILITYJSUBSURFACE PLANS:
-NO SUBSURFACE PLANS ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS PROJECT. EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING A UTILITY LOCATOR AND ESTABLISHING THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY
AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE PROJECT REACH.
SITE CONTROL POINTS
Pant NoAhing Fasting Elevation
7 1028870.3448 1422541.7503 2821.3258 KCI#7
8 1028570.8384 1422597.7212 2817.7087 KCgfB
9 1028391.8475 1422870.8411 2812.0089 KCpF9
10 1027511.8191 1422748.0359 2813.3103 KC1~10
11 1025942.4582 1422787.2050 2588.8792 KCg111
12 1025805.8541 1421944.8738 2554.2898 KCgt12
13 1025788.4890 1421725.5854 2551.88 KCp113
14 1025894.3808 1421455.1527 2573.7180 KCgF14
15 1025921.7310 1421119.0778 2552.8375 KCI#15
18 1028278.0387 1420843.1843 2581.4100 KCIg18
17 1025884.5878 1420870.4748 2545.0081 KCIC17
18 1025554.9050 1420771.0755 2581.1814 KC1~18
19 1025810.7214 1420830.8907 2558.3850 KCI#19
20 1025701.2791 1420315.3839 2548.4020 KCIl20
21 1025778.4808 1420093.7311 2543.0797 KCI#21
22 1028144.57 1420534.5059 2547.8954 KCIg22
Wo
F
f
'w

PROJECT
LEGE11 tD N

_
~.~ W
"

0
~
ON
m
U
~ ~
U~ . QQ
OZ
~~
~

W
~~ ~
i N
rca
ou

STREAM RESTORATION
VEGETATION
<
~~ a' =

v o
x~
oz

~
w
z .a i
°u
w

p
=

/~'~'~'~ U
Z
W ~
Proposed Thalweg -
- Existing Woods Line....
wdApproximate Bankfull Limits ___ _
_._.
Single Tree __ __ __ ~ O J
-
Proposed Offset Rock Cross Vane ___ _ _ o ~
Proposed Step Pool _.. _. _ ..
TOPOGRAPHY ~ ~ $
Up
Proposed Stone Toe Stabilization .... . __ m z j
_ _ _... ------ ------
Minor Contour Line ~ g
Proposed Channel Block ® _ o
72D
Major Contour Line ._ _ . Q

Proposed Riffle Grade Control __
___ ~

~ J

a
W
U
Proposed Riffle Enhancement . __ __ __. _ _ ___ 0 MISCELLANEOUS ~
W
Z
CGNTPACTOR SHAH COLLECT RIFFLE MATERIALS
AT OFFUNE ABANDONED SECTIONS OF THE ~,
ENHANNCE/ENT L~TDIO~NS~. SE THEM IN NEW RIFFLE
am AWUST 2007
xuu N.T.S.
IFTHERE IS ADEQUATE EXISTING GFAVEL BED
M,TERIAL AT CUT LOCATIONS RaFIE ENHANCEMENT
CNSR
EH~
OLT Existin Barbed Wire Fencin -X-X-X-
g g -
GENERAL NOTE:
IT
WITHDESIGNREPRESENTA
ONS
TO MAID: THIS DETERMINATION.
& PROJECT
EXIStIng OV@rhead ElectrlC Utlllty _ _ _ _. OFIE LEGE ND
STET 1A OF 28

UNCOMPACTEDBACKFlLL
19 MN. COYPACTEO
FlNISH GRADE 5--={ gp~LL
5' I ROAI
COARACTED CHANNEL
&`~LL . 1. I ~Qi ~2x INVERT
s cDNroL i9T
STONE TOR EROSION CONiR04
BASSI
CHANNEL BLOCK
SCALE: NTS
moFNmrosm In orrROVOSm vaoFmroosm
awmawolx awarELVnoLx CNWIELNWN
A Raw
4 , f FLTER FABPoC
(INSTALL ON
- -- uPSrREAMSwq
,7~ .,
ZD'
I I
_ ( I
~f~
A 8'
PUNVEW
B
~l_- Baste-
PROPOSED ~ ~ _ FLOW-.
STREAMBEO ELEV. Pool _
BACKFILLVUrH
ND(TURE OFN67 FILTER HEADER FOOTER
STONE, CLASS A 0R 8 FABRIC ROCI(S ROCKS
RIPRAP, ANdOR NATURAL
STREAMBEO NATERULLS SECTION &B'(PROFILEVIEVA
fA OF PROPOSf~ 1A OF PROPO8E0 119 OF PROP08m
CHANN0.MIDTH CHANN0.VHDTFI CNINN0.VAOTH
TOP OFCBTIEfI
1n RocKe sET 12 T01 X
AT PROPOBEO BMIIffULL
STREAI6ED ELEVATKIN
ELEVATION ........................ .................. °... ................._ ~_.
- - NO GAPS
BEMIEEN
STREAIABED ~~
ELEVATION
FILTER FABRIC FOOTER ROCKS
(INSTALL ON
UPSTREAM $IDq DOHNSTREANVIEW
PROPOSED GRADE
A 12 T01X
BANffULL
ELEVATION
S TO j~ SIOpE
A'
- STREAM BED
ELEYATON
FOOTER ROCKS
FlLTERFABRN;
(INSTALL ON
UPSTREAM SIOq SECTION Aa'
OFFSET ROCK CROSS VANE
SCMF NTS
NOTE: (1 ALL ROCKS OTL STONES W THEVANE STRUCNRE ARE STONE BWLDERS.
SHORT CROSSVANE ARM TO BE HALFTHESLOPE OF THE FIAlARM SLOPE.
PROPOSED
7
SIXIMECUf LIVE STAKES ~
JTT\ 6ROLN0
/
BUDS (((
\\\
J
(FAGNO UPNWRD) ~ /
LNE CUTTWG
In
(1"T07DWAETER( ~
w
ANGLE CUi3765'
NOTE UVE STARS TO BE INSTALLED
IN ACCORDANCE NT1Ti PRQIECT
SPECUL P ROVISIONS AND AS
dRECTED IX THE DESIGNER
LIVE STAKES
scuE: xrs
COIR FlBER MATiINO -
CONTINUE1700NMSLOPE
OF STONE TOE
E7UST1NGl
PROPOSED
GROUND
w STONETOE PROTECTION
OF BASS 18TONE
_ (PLACE 1IdOF SPEGFlEO
STON E BELOW THE FXISTRN3
GRADE AT THE TOE OF SLOPq
,STONE TOE STABILI7ATION
SCALE:NTS
~lMD~1FILL ~VAD~TFiLL BA ~uLL
FILTER FABRK; FOOTER ROCKS
ONSTALLIXV
UPSTREAM SIOq ~--y-yy~
~
y ~ ROCKTI
ED INTO
STREAK BANK

WATER FLOW ~ NO GAPS BEM~EEN
m ~ ROCKS
LA
PLAN VIEW
PROPOSED PROFILE
SEE PROFR.E SHEETS FOR
STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS.
(f0 SE VERIFIED BY DESIGNER)
BANKFULL ELEVA ON
FILTER FABRIC
(KEY IN AND ANCHOR) PROFILEVIEW FILTER FABRIC
~
WPo D
ro
DOUBLE STEP POOL
5CALE:NTS
"' NOTES: -ALL ROCKS OR STONES ARE RIP RAP, CLASS I
-DETAIL SHOWN IS FOR A DOUBLE STEP POOL.
ADJUST ACCORdNGLY FOR SINGLE AND TRIPLE STEP POOLS.
(SEE PROFILE SHEET TO DETERMINE AMOUNIj
riB A STONE TOE EXISTING STREAK
STABILIZATION SUBSTRATE
INVERT SETAT

_____
___________.
_____ _ _
______ PROFlLE GRAD
O _ _ _ _ ._ _ _________________ __._.__________ ____ _ _ _______________________ O
~ O
n 0
a
m O
'v ~
~ Q
0
1
L
/ ..
(
Y
;
V ~
/
'
I
:.
W ~
CY
0 T
l
`
. `
~
I
I `
'
l
/ FlF 01N

0
0 ~

4 MW.
0 0
M
CHANNEL BO
TT
O ~TPo
O M
D
TM ~
_____
_____
____ _ _ ._____._.
__
_______________
____ _
__ _______________________ ____________ _____ ORAOE CONTROL
BOTTOM OF B4NKJ TOP OF B4IK 5TONE (CLASSD
L-- 9 A
USE EXISTING BED TOP RIFFLE USE FASTING BED EKIBTING STREAK
STONE TOE SUBSTRATE
MATERIAL TOACNIEVE
FlNSHED 7FULWEG pROFlIE MATERAL TOACHIEVE
FINISHEDTHALWEG 5fABLVATION INVERTSETAT
6RADEABOVE RGG ELEV.6SLOPE GRADE ABOVE RGC. PROFILE GRADE
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE PROPOSED
THALWEG -
~PTHRLWE~ --; __ __
__ ~
__________________
________ ___-

~

m
h
m
___
FILTER GRADE CONTROL STONE
GRADE CONTROL STOLE FABRIC (CIASSD
(clnssq
PROFlLE• SECTON C-C ~
L
~O E
E
~
3
ST
(
(C
lAS
A)
~
~
L
RIFFLE GRADE CO NTROL s
(
o
scale Nrs
E N B-B

Z
O
a
W
C
N
a
O
O
FED
3
~.
~-^ o
i m
~~ ~ orv
o~
~F • KJ
N~
4 Y
~M W QU
i =
a ~o
oz
~~ ~ x
v~
N U
~ W
W
2 Q
u ~
z
Q Z
O
O
F-
~ Q' Z
Up
mg Z
U H Q~
O ~ T
~ Q W
J
4~ Q
W W
V
~ Z
N W
DETAILS:
STABILIZATION
s

-d -2 0 4 8
GRAPHIC SCALE
O • TFIALYhO LOCATKM
TYPICAL POOL -RIGHT MEANDER
r
~~ ~
o`` '~~ ,F
~oQ ~~
o``
COQ
MAIN CHANNEL
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
"C4" STREAM TYPE
/,
i

LEFT MEANDER
NOT TO SCALE
nE aADKro ExISnNG
GRAOE AT 3:I SLOPE
(TTPIC4L)
Og __ _ ___ -______._______ . _ _____ _____
0 •THALWEG LOCATION
Tve1nA1 olrrl c
O
ro
A
'~ 0
coq heo
oT ~',
~r
POINT BAR
`,\
~',
i
RIGHT MEANDER
NOTrascALE
TIE SACKTO EXISTING
GRADE AT 3:1 SLOPE
(TYPICAL)
SACI(TO EXISTING
M1DEATS:1 SLOPE
PICAU
TRIBUTARY CHANNEL
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
"C4" STREAM TYPE
(DO NOT USE AT STEP POOL MEANDERS)
STATION 100+00-113+00 ! 119+62-123+93
FLOODPU
CONITHCTORSHALL MNNTAIN FXISnNO FL000.
PWN WHERE POSSI~E. A VARIANCE OF 05 FOOT
TOLERANCEYMLL SE ALLOWED WFEN OEV4ITING
FROM THE PROPOSED MAX CROSS SECTION OEPTH.
CONTRACTOR S HPLL ALSO PROTECT ALL E7USiING
MATURE TREES AND VEGETATION VAIERE POSSNNE.
0 -wuxcawuiwx
T/n1n 111 ~Irrl C
TRIBUTARY CHANNEL
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
"B4c"STREAM TYPE
(DO NOT USE AT STEP POOL MEANDERS)
nE SACKTO EXISTING
STATION 113+00-117+50 ~I~~ 3:13LOPE
S.0' 1.S 1.>C 3.C 3.0 1.9' 19' S.O
I i I ~ I
I I I i I I I
2a I I i ~ I I
--L___-__'----1----~---
as --- -- I
1.a i
os
o .,~,~I,~,,>~II
Tvnlnnl nlerl c
TIE SACK TO EXISTING
GRADE AT 3:1 SLOPE
\ ~ (Tn'IC~W
5.0 4.4' 3.1' 1.5 5.5 5.C
I I
I I
i i ~ i 2a
Wbkf '
I 1.7
i
0.9
QS'
0 •TXALY40lOGTKKI
TYPICAL POOL -LEFT MEANDER
nEeaDKTO ExISnNG
ORAOEAT&1 SLOPE
(ttPICAL)
~_
a
F
~¢
WF~
F

nE BACK TO E705TING _
GRADE AT 3:I SLOPE ~
m
CTTPIGL)
6
nE SACKTOIXISnNG
GRADE AT 3:16LOPE
(IYPICAy
Z
O
N
W
0:
tl
N
N ~
0
`z t0
I~~ U ON
d
c N 02
U~ . ~-
~ yQ
Z OU
x~ tt
Z I
d NO
a=
~~
~~ • %
~ Qu
w w
z
U ¢
w
0 Z
Jq
U
0
IJ.I W ~
Z
Up
mg Z
7
U~ v
p~ z
~ a
Z W
Q J
4g a
W W
U
~ Z
~ W
DETAILS:
TYPICAL XS
0 •MLLNEQIDGTpM
TYPICAL POOL -RIGHT MEANDER
3 STATION 10+00-34+06 ~
0 •MLLYR01l7GTpN
TYPICAL POOL -LEFT MEANDER
ZY ZYZ
Q Q
Q .nww[olurn«
TYPICAL POOL -RIGHT MEANDER
O •THAlWEO LOCATpN
Y TYPICAL POOL -LEFT MEANDER Y
Z

N N N N N N N N N
I~ ~ ~
, ~ 00 cD O O O N
O
', oOO N rn O ~ W N O O
o

o
1 i_ _ ! i. ;_
I
o _. _ .
_.
_o
0
O
O
N
O
O
O
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
C11
O
O
O
m
O
0
O
v
0
0
O
f
O
O
O
-~
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
_. ,
... ','__
..._.
.....,. ,.
....',, _. ,
.....{. ....
.....',..VPI STA
D(H71.38..1....
.. ~, ....'; ....
ii '.

~~ ~. : '~ ATIONi2,8 3,92 ~
.
: : ,

: ! VPI A':101a08;63
- ~ EL~V OH281472 :

_..
'
~ ...
...
__, iVPiST 101+4718
.. ~ ~PI
~~
....~
.. 101+99,88
ELENA 2,Bk188 '~ELEY
. ON 2,619.98
'~ ~

'
i

' :' ~
' VRI STA '~
1+81:86
' `,',.'..EIEVA
VPI STA 1 ON:2,C79.32...
1+89.18
:... ... ....
'. : ...........
.... .... ELEVATIO , ....
2:8!11.92 .. ...-.~--+....
~:ELEVAilO .:....
2,81275 i

I <
_.. .__ .;_. .._.l .i.... .t- -:..... ~ .LSTA 10Z~k82. .. ... '~....

_.. ~I _.. . .....,... 1....i '-~~~~i-VPf A'103+M25. .... i- .. .. AI10N$&1D. .. :.-...'.._.
... ... __..
: : ..... i,...
: ''.__;:
: -. ......':.ELEV ON~2,B08.62..
..
....' .VIN-
1...
A,~109+di9.T ..-;:._.
... .~ :
__:_.. _: ;._ :....:. ELEV ~QN 2j810D2 _.
__.1/P157 N0S+48.96..... ....
. '~.. ', l '..ELEYA7l 2.1j07,90.'
;
' __': ~VW'Stk' 03rb7.29
'
_1...
VPI STA 1 _
..._...
_
77481
-'..ELEVA~1
~N2jB08.85 "'"" _.
'
... :

.
~
ELEVATION
808.86', ~ ~~ ...VPI S7A'. 03 7.93 ~: ~....

' ._ ...;._.
'.
'.._ -ELENA, ~ N~ ..._
,808.20 ... _.......
'.

;
K
IiBT, 1 ~ .02 :

' : 87A. 1104+17 B3. ...
.
~ L6VAT10N 2, 7.94 '. :
...
,. _. _.. i... ..1.....1. .A710N2.B05
' .:....
_~.. 1-SVL 104*39: ._,. ..:.....
' ... _L...
'
_., i_..
: . .. i...
: ;,....; .. .. ~.....
, ... _.. {.....i"E
: ! ~ AT10N 2i8~ ,. ... ._
41. _. .....
,.....
: :
r

... `... '.....; ..',._ _~~'. .VPI S7A-105+22.
_ _.
._ ...
... ._.. i.... . !.. '~......~1. .....!.... ',._; ~.EL AT10N 2,808. 6
...-_i... '~.....'. .....!_.. .i iELEVA fON~Z,80b.67 ..: ._._ ._ ~'.._.',.....
....:._ _. .....1... ..YPI.$7A: 10 :73.28.!... (..!.x.__„_
~ ...... _..i --:-
I ... ;... _'._.. . ELEVATION. 804.67... : i

_ ..".- - __.',_ ',.... ... ,
;....
-~ : : ~ VPI 9TA. 106'`88'18 i ' '~ i i
. : '~ ELEV/1Tt N 1,80602
. - ELEVATION 8W:62.~' .. ~ ' ~ ' ~~ ..-,...
_ ,..
ELEVATION
i 2.804.47 '~

. . _ .:..... .. _ uPl STA. 1 .24 ~ i

- VPIST 107a0441 t..
~ _
ELEVATION 2. ....... .:.._
.!0 ._. .. ... ..........

....b.. .,
'~... -E
AT1tl142801
B0',... t

vPl.srA
07+1e 93 !
vsisrA
m+zala ~--~..

..
~....
. ELEVATIO 2589.90 :, ELEYATI N 290:130 ~... - __ ~
. ... ...

V$FSUC 70 +69.281 ' I I m ~: ~' ~
_. VPL37A 707. .80 ... _.i
~VATIDN
8¢0.43 _
.. .. .
...L...
. EVAT14N2
: .43.__:.
:
~
~ VPI STS. 1 +77.91: : : : :
.. ',....

' ..~....:...

I STA 107+58. '
'.-...

' .-.. ELbVAT10N

~ 2,699.93

: :... ....

i .....',

!
: ,
' ..'....
.
' j
.. ....-
E
ATION 2,587 , .i
... .
~ : STA'107 32: ...
; ..
; .. .-
'~ _..
.
, ....
~ ...
....
'

.. ..
Vpl ~
iA ,108933.¢3 .i.... :VP STA~10a+26 ~ ..
'....' .... i... .._ .....i
....
.... ;..-.
i
.. ''. ELEV ON Y~i98:89 ....i.',..EL VAilON 2995 . :.... .. ..... .. .... .....: : .
S7A 108+41.
' ~ : EL NATION 2 b98
~ VPI A 108+67.42 I ''. I '. : '.
~
... ELEVA7 N2,599.321_. .,-EI,EV TION-Z,fi97,95 ,._.; ..... .... ~ . _...'• .:..... ..,
;....
..
. . VPI $T 109!9 04
~~ ,
VPI STA; 1 24 ELENA ON .90 ~ ~
: : I VPI STAG 08+10.84
....

.. VPI S'TA 108
1744.... VPI 6TA r10 24Q6..:..
.-_.!
<... ~ .
.....:
~.
ELEVAT10N.2, 84.50 i._. -ELEVAT7ON.' 588,.06.',._ ;....1 .. i... -..--i ...:..... .. ..._.i....

: i ~ ELEVATION 694.94: ':
.
_. E7.EVA710NZ 94 ! 1,
;~.. STA,.1Q9!91,9 l.. ; ;.... ! ... .. .
~
,EL ATION 2,894.
: .
~ VPI TA. 109+88.27 ''.
~.

. ... a
~. VPI- :
7A. SODf98 63 : : : :
}. EL AT10N$SA:i

,. i ...E T1L1N 2,60.9.28 - I ....!.. ~. ' -_
_ _.. i... ~ ..

~ .....'. L..-. .. -~ .!....
' YPPST 110+64.83 '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~
'. ' RL4VA ON 2,581.28 ' :

_. ~ ELENA .. .2~6B2.6a-. ' ~ .. i... ...: :..... - i....
O
c
O
i
~L

2
n
~ 6
~ ~o
O
p ~
~ - A SUBMITTED WITH RESTORATION PLAN (80%) AUO 07
c
; UT TO CRAB CREEK KC I
~ ~ ASSODAIES ~ 6~ -
y ~ ~ ~ STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION

T
~ O Z ~ ENGINEERS PLANNERS SCIENTISTS
~ ~ 1
m ENNICE, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD ~ sru. o[saw*ox on[ unxavcc
~ STATION 100+00 TO STATION 112+15 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
REVISIONS

N N N N N N N N
~ O~ J ~I 00 ~ Co ~
-. ~ 00 N tT O ~ W N
f
}
.... . ':__
. 1. _. ~ ....'...
~, '~ ..'...... ...!.... ~! .
~ ..:..._: ~
: ~ ~. '.
~,

._..
. ...._ ~ ~,
N

O

~

w ,. _

_ _ r - , . ,. .. ._...... .... ,
',
, : ,....

. ....

O ~. ~. ..< i.... _~'~ ELEW1 2;688:2b.1....
.. _~_... ..i i.. '~. _d.... !. .~.. _. .-.. i,.-_ i_. ~_YPI t 3x92
.'~..._j.VFIS
~ .i13r./8.28 ...'; ._. ._.i ..ELEVATION. ,587.51 ;...
. ~ VPI STA 1'13r .?<1
,...', VPI S t13+80.Y4
A '~ ELEVATION 2, 7111 i

__
.._
- _... ~,
.,.. ,.,ELENA
.. ~ ON 2,0185.11
. '
.. .LSTK 113r
~....
08;
,
l < ' fVPI S13+7402 LE4Ari0k2. ,81
_.. .
.... ..
....- ,...
. ......;ELENA ON~2,fi&1.81 ..
... . _
__ . .i.-.. ;....- i.....'... :.....',..... .';.... i.. ~. ...:;... .. '... .LSTA i13r.80 Z... - ....',.....
A ~ ~ ~' ~' ATION 2 .12' '

~, ....~{. .. .-.VPI$TA:11 r75i11.1.. ~'~ ~
V111 SfA 114 ~' .....
772 ... ', .~....
ELEVATIOH2

VAI STA 114
7851 ' EC£VATfON4 ~
'
~
;.

'
i
'~~
VP1S711. 114
50..
~ ~
,
....
~~~
ELEVATION2 8284
' ELEVATION 2 80
13 ~' G1
__ . ..._ .
- _.._ .. -. .. ...... ....;...
,, , .
_. ...m...+_ ._.
W

.... .... .. ._.. ..;... .Vp1 STA-115r 9.05 ;..
.... ...
.... . . _. ._._ ...',.._. VPISTA.145! 49...: ':. op~~ pp
~ n7154 ~28
;~'.. '. . .... d._.
... ~,, _.. ~'~,_... :.....~',... LEVATION2 18... i.... .. .
~TION 2. .15i.. _'~,._ _~;._.

CJt
'
VPI STq, 11
11.44: ,
'
+ ! ELEVATION 670.32' ~ ~'

~....
..
.
VPI STA 11
...
.
17
b8
..... ..;,.. ELEVATI ~ 2;684:32-
,N :.
. ..
.... .....
O . ~

' __. EI-EVATfON
.
. 580.07,.... IVPI~iSTA 1 .
8+29 ---
80 ,. , ..
.
' .... ;...
_.. ,. _.. .. :__. VPI STk-41 23.88:. .~. ..
~
~ ELEVATIO _.
2,580.83 .....
,.. ~,_...
: .... ~ ..!_.
i
.. _.! .... .. ELEVATON ,578A7
,

i
'
'
p ', ! ! i . I
, ! i

Oo ,... -

_. ._.. .~
O '' I I ....i.
1
1 :

' ~.'VPI A 119r81.B8 ~~'
... .VPF SI 119~87.30... ~, ELEV TION 2;674,00 .....:. ::-._ N N
;ELENA ON 2,672,64 VPI ST
; 119~78.23 '~.
_.
.
~~~~ (Jl (J7
.. „
. .
ELENA ON 2,573.57 , ~ ~ ~
N
O VPI ST
.. ...
ELENA 119~91.33__.
.
ON 2572 52 ...
'HPI - .d18~93.38 `'-T : N -P OO
N
+ +
O ... ,..... ... ,_. ;...., ,....;.... . .............. O
O O
VPI STA: 12 38.43 '~ ', ~o
ELEVATION ,572-45
... YPISTA 12 . 04
_: r
._.
.. __.
ELfaYAT10
.
. 2,571.35 ~ ,~~ '.
_
VPI STA; 1 73.53 VPt STA:1 .82 ... .
~~ ~~
ELEVATI 2571.30
N .... ._.. ..... . . B.EVA ~, ~
~ ,572:25;,._.. .. .._.
}
,
O '~ ~, :~

I ELEVATI 2 82 ! !

_ _
_
..
VPESTA521
03....... :....
__.._-.
_:.._ , _ YPIST.131 11....':.. L...;..._L._.
'~, '. ELEVATION 2
~~
E '.
.. .._. :.. .-.. -VPI~53'A: 141_ ..
'...
2 .._._..._....
__.:__ i... . ELEVATON 2. 0.75..;.. i.........

N

O
O
~ ~

N
c W
o +
O
O
N
O
O
N
(J1
[D
MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET 4

i
N
(1T
J
N
N
J
Q)
.._. ~ VIyI~StA~ 24'25.37_.,.....
_.. i. '!._. _ :~Et.EVATI~N2~9tfd:13'""
...i.....:.. '. .. .VELS7A. r43.77_i_..
!ELENA N 2'55808 ~:
VPI ST/L 22+52A7 '~,
-ELENA N2588021 _..
!.... ... VPI 3TA. 122x8147 .,....
._.: i. ~'~. -. .',.._ELEVA~ N4~,589:99--
'1 1048
I _ ~LEVAT101t 5en3 ...'',
VPI STA 1 r21 t8
. ~ .._ELENA ~ N 58873
....:. - ....VPE SiA: ~ 28.50 :....
_. 1. .. ... A 2.588:71 ;....
ST, 1 81.86
ELEVATIO 2,887.e~
ii
F A SUBMITTED WITH RESTORATION PLAN (5096) AUO 07
- c UT TO CRAB CREEK ~ K C I
~ SSODLIES ~ ~
~, o y ~ ~ STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION "
T Z
Z ~ ENGINEERS PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
~ C7
r ~ `
rT
t ENNICE, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 4601 SI% FORKS ROAD I .w. ~:~~ w*E .r.~oxco
~ STATION 112+15 TO STATION 123+93 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609 REVISIONS

N N N N N N
UI CII CJ~ CT1 (J~ UI
cn cn rn rn ~ v
o -P W N O O -P

0 2s7o.oo
o
o
r~

~
~ ~- uP~ srw ±... 11
....., ;... ,....
~ O
~ ELEVATION 2 17 I
:
: ;
' ~ O
..... . I STA 10«74. .. ..
: -
. , ; :
i i
'' _
__ ._. _
.- ATT0611,6~7 .
.... _
,...
; .._

-' .... ; ATWN 2,667.
10+85.
I STA ~ - : t _ :... ~, __
~ i
~ VI
~

+ .
. O
O ;E ATION 2,669 0 ~ ~. ~, r

11 C

i VPI A 11+69.
: ELEV TION 2, ~.09

..... ,
.... .
. ..~....
~ s
;....,..
A 11+90.27
.,..... ~
.....,... r
N IELEVA ON 2,668.64 '

O
O _.. 'I _..
'' - • EL~/A ON~?.568:92- ...';,...., ' ''
....
.. _.. . .. ...1_ i VPI
-. .... A 1 421.03
......- _..
: .. ELEV T~QN 2;588,00
__ __ ;._ ..-.vPlsrA 2.'73,14--<
...d.. ..;.....! .... .....:....i....;..... ....!.... i.....':.... ......ELEVATI N.2,SST..tfll....

~
O
O ._i.. ...i.._L... ..,..I.ELEYATI ~2,G86,81_1 ... .....:....1....;..... .._~
...;.... d....
~ VPI STA 3+20.82 ~ ~
ELEVATIO 2666 69 i : I k
__ _ vprsTA 3+~8.zs.. ,_..

-~ ~ . .'~:.. VPfb~TA.? 185 '.. .;....
~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ELEVATION ,588.18'.
O :
~, VPI STA 34+ 087 ~ . ~, i
~~ ELEVATION 2, .04 i
!
... ........ . ..VPI STA I4 .18 < . ~...
~ ....j...., :....:.
.... ..i-.. ELEVATION2~ 62 ,_ `
, . -....',,.... : '~,
I sTa u e N
I I ' I I I I i I E 1iVATION 688.10 i
~ ISTA:16+01i

O
..
.
:._.. ' '~
~ ATION 2, .26
O _ .. .. .._,......
I STA 15+99. ~
_..' 9 m
E ATION 2,583 3 , I gA
rn
I Al 7. :
~ ~ i ~, R
.... :.E NATION 2,583: 0. , ...
`. ...%.
~ ... ..... o ct
,STA~A
~78 ~ ~~~oo
E EVATION2
i 18 F
~TTii
Gn i i

O ~; ',
'. ~
i ;
'
l
..... .. .. ,.... ,.
, .. . ...
..
,,. ....
....

....
.~, _..
....
;,, .VPI r
Ai14486.3f
....;,. .....

....:.. VPI
.. TA 18.50.60 :
_.:... ....
ZiSiN 2;684:2
....,.....`. _. _..
j ELEV TICIN 2;582!72 ~ . " " :
...
_.. ELEV ~._.
710N 2,56271
..:'~~..Vpl~
A:98+68:22
.'.. : _.
_.. .....!.._ .. :....:.... .L...1-E TION 2;584.20 . ,_..;.. .l._..
J

__:.VPI STA.] +82.flT J... iELEVRTI
i ~ 2,58!1.91., ~'. I
:
.._£LEVA7l0. .2.661,90 ..i , ~
I;~gSTA-0 a73.67i... :_... i.... i....
~ ~A' ]
... ~'~ -
..<_..
- ;.ELEVATIO 7.662.69
...............
~.
•EI~/AY70 2,681.(0
W

O
.. VPfSTA.i .J._.. ....~....;.... ...

VPI STA. i$+~ .83~ ~.
;
lp LEVATION 2,-- - 26 _
'
+ ~
VPI STA 1 .71
LEVAT(ON 2, .23
VPI STA 19+ 78
-
ELEVATION 2, 1.T1 ~

N ~... ... i_. ... .. L.,.i !.....L... I _.J....1....
O _ ',

O
O TiON!2,680. I I I
VPI
39.62
TA 204
~~
/
.,
~
.,.
~ ~ ~~
E TION 2.669.00
VPI 854.6 ~ ~. : ~, ~.
E TION 2,656.99 ~..._a ._.-',. .....:.... < ~....

i
:
~ 20+x,83
~
:
:
_
_.
.. . .....
.
... ., ELE
A'~ON 2,5604 .
.....
.... .__: .
_.

O
O
`• UT TO CRAB CREEK
~
o ~ ~ STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
z
O
~
m ~ ENNICE, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
STATION 10+00 TO STATION 22+13
A SUBMITTED VNTH RESTORATION PIAN
~K~C I ~ _.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SCIENTISTS '" ~ .
460151% FORKS ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
o[scnsno•
REVISIONS

••••~••••~••••!••••~•••i•••••••••••••••••S~•
0

N
O
O
N
J
O
O
o g
o O
o P

IJ
W
O
O
N
LO
O
O
I WI
C~
O
O
~I
ELEV
VPI
EIEV
W
N
O
O
t'~
kD
O
O~
\ ~~X
DO
~O
~X
n / ^
~,~/~\
~~

8
30*00
a
ri
i
I I
i
i
J I
a
x
n
1[~ k
c E
UT TO CRAB CREEK
KC I A SUBMITTED WITH RESTORATION PLAN (BO%) AUO 07
~
o a ~
v
i~ y
~
STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
"ssoa"TES of Kc
~ ~.
T v 5 ~ ENGINEERS PLANNERS SCIENTISTS _
~ m Z ~ ENNICE, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA a6olslx FORKS Roao '' ' s„~ oE~.*~+ a~~ ~~~
~ STATION 22+13 TO STATION 34+05 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
REVISIONS

0 0
z z
m m
RR p A D
~4 C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffiA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m11~
P°il~ f ~ n A ~ ~ gjm in ~'~'i t ~ ~ ~ vw ?
v0 ~ m mo y y~0 m ~y ~I pz
O O rm
~ ~ %~ ~ m~~ ~o ~ ~
T Z ^~
°~ 5 ~ m >C C ~ Qp $ >C>Cm~p ~_ ~ m
c ~C~' mz ~ ~ Mmp ~~ ~ o~ m
5 z QE ~p
i o~ylSnQ ~ ~ ~ ~N ~~~"~ ~ yN ~ ~
;D a= m C~ j~ m ~~
m ~ I1~
Z ~ ~Y^ Z y
O ~ T II i• N .Um
N CC~~ CC]~ m N Cz poy
m ~~ D 2 2 G ~ ~ my
C
^ ~ N
x Q
°
s s~~~~l~ ~ o
p
((«
9 N N N N N
c s'a 'a 'a i
, O O O
z z z
, m m m
A O A
g Fsy ~'~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ Fs ~~~°~ ~ ~N ~
z y2 m ~ # ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~° m zv~ v c ° N yc ~ ~°• m
'n O C N g K A 2 O 2 F; ~ F 2 C
m~ 3 ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ m~ ~ ~ ~ CC~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ s y 4~ ~ ~~ ~ Q~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ € ~ k~ _
i9 m~pp ~ O~ ~ ~ A5 C~ ((pp
ImCI ~I ((11T~11 ° ~ O po T = 5?
w ~ X ; ~ N ~ S T ~ m ~ y9 ~ y5yy ~ ~m~Wmp ~ v CVC
Z ~ ~m ~ ~ yyZ~ ~ C ~ ~~ ~ r~ ~ C m O A ~ ~ Z
N2 ~~C m~ m vm • L T ~ m0~ AAD iDm
N m m m ~ y C ~ N=j ~ y O
VN ~ 9
U
Q ~ »»gg~" _ ; g ~D~~~ Z w
~ ~~~~'~ ~ s ~ ~ Q ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
m
i m$
m K K
8 am Uir imam O g ~o~o~ p T
• « m
A V V V V O~ O
O
N Z
O y
z
m m
T
p N
c v a ~ m ~°C ~ ~ $p ~~~55 ~ )5° m ~ g$ ~ g~ m
o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m m p ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~o ~ ~~ m
~ ~ m >n ~~ m Q g~ ~ m Q g CCS~ ~ m ~ g C<~~ o
T T .~I O ~ F O ~ 1"
°~ T m ~ = qm ~ Q~ T ~.~ T N
C~ °tr, p0 t K+ 22 mC~ ~ ~ -1 mC ~ ~j n H
c~ z vS ~ tumor Z
Z 'ImOD ~~~~ n ~y ° q O~il~ ° ~ Ll m~Yrl ~ ° P~~J O n
~~~~ ~~~ ~ m~ ~ ~$s5 ~ m ~ ~~~5 ~ m ~ H ~,~
mzS~~~m m mm z c z~ ~ ~ C z1 ~ ~ A ~
p N c ~i ~ ~ ~ Po = i~ {o{,~ z D ~ w ~ ~ X00
N m N~ ~ ~ N N ~ 2 ~ m
= vm v > G1
m ~ n ~ ~ i~0n ~ ~ fn
2 mm m m a0
<~~ r !' I° Q 4 'T~ D T T T T ~ m T D D T ~ m O
z ~ y ~~~~ 4 ~~~~ 4
~ ~ ~
A A p
z MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET 18
~ ~ ~
Sri NN N 1NJ Ny O N NN N NN O
8 U U U U U U U U O 8 U G N U y~ 8 p N N N (~~
F F
ff..~~ tt~~ tt~~ ff.ff ff..~~ t~~. ~ roIp Yo~1 ro o p eD >'pkM1
A N N N N N N .~'. .~'. ~ O A IN. A A y ~ N N N N 9 .
fC ~+ ~°. A SUBMITTED WfTH RESTORATON PLAN (80%) AUO 07
Fyf ~ - UT TO CRAB CREEK ~ KC I
-ssawTES a ec I
~, ~ ~ ~ ~ STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION ~' ~ ~~~:~~
Z ~g ENGINEERS • PLANNERS SCIENTISTS
~i Z Z E
~ S ENNICE, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD I. ~ s.W xuw.on oat u.eorco
~ STATION 100+00 TO STATION 112+15 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609 _ REVISIONS

MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET 15
O O
y IZT1 IZTI
Rm1 D D
2
m
A O O
N 2 2
m m
m m m a
m
~ 7
~ c
m
Z m m ~
m ~ y
2
N ~
• 2
, m
. ~
0
N
~ O
o
2
n
t/l ~
O
m
O
SEE SHEETS 1]-21 FOR MAIN STEM
fL+ ~ ~ A SUBMITTED WfTH RESTORATION PLAN (EO%) AUG 0]
~ UT TO CRAB CREEK ~ KC I
~, [~' ~ ~ ~ STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION ~ ASSOOATES OF NC ~~~''" ~•~-
y Z ~ ENGINEERS • PLANNERS SCIENTISTS '~I
A' ~ ~ ENNICE, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 460151X FORKS ROAD ~ '=' sn ocww+w a+c .r.eor[o
~ STATION 112+15 TO STATION 123+93 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609 REVISIONS

SEE SHEETS 16 818 FOR TRIBUTARY
O
N
~ O
2
n
VI ~e
O 6~
IT ~O o
0
O
C
m
O
O O
in m m
m v D
y
2
m
O N N
~ O O
p m m
Z m m
m
m
n
A
O
Z O O
N
m m
m n
' N
• Z
L7 ~O~
.'~i~(~
ya~~~
x
C
2
m
N
m
x
m
r ~3~yd
df~~NG~ gN
1N3~~ NOU•
k e A SUBMITTED WITH RESTORATION PLAN (80%) AUG 07
F UT TO CRAB CREEK ~ KC I
v ~ {~ ~ STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION ~ ~ssaa"'ES ~ xc ' ~ ' .,
2 ~ ~ ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
~ ~ ~ ENNICE, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 460151X FORKS ROAD " , :~. ~~*~. a,E .••eov[n
~ STATION 10+00 TO STATION 22+13 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609 ,, .,
• REVISIONS

MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET 17
~~
~i~

a~
gy
o
~
i c
~a m

y 2 2
m m m
~
m ~ D >
y
2 z
a
O
A
N
p N N
O O
2 Z
m m
Z
m m m
°m
z
O
Z

O O
m m
m n
N
• 2
, m
p
.

O

~ 1

O

'
°°
~~~ C
v
=
n ~ .
Vf /~~tG
~ ~
O
r
m
MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET 19
O
A SUBMITTED WRIT RESTORATION PLAN (80%) AUO 07
~ ~ " UT TO CRAB CREEK ~ KC I
~ ~ ~ S ~ ASSOpATES OF Kc ~" " ~
m v
Z
~ TREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
TISTS ;
$ Z g ENGINEERS • PLANNERS SCIEN r
~ S ENNICE, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 4601 Six FORKS ROAD sa xsas*cM o~rz .wsonso
~ RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
STATION 22+13 TO STATION 34+05 REVISIONS

BL A33HS 33S ~ 3NI1H01`m
• v
C
. m
~~ Z
~ m
G m
m ~
' .
mg
. .
• .
z z ~ •
N m m m
m o D
y
m
O N N
~ O O
N Z Z
p m m
Z m m
m
°m • .
n
_I
y i m
'n A .
. N •
. Z
. m
. O •
C ~9~hVh'F,s
FF~~
is ~
~~°
`9 C
2
w
0
m
o.
0
!Q X p A SUBMITTED WfTI~ RESTORATION PLAN (8096) AUO 07
e D UT TO CRAB CREEK ~ KC I
~ ~ ~ ~ STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION ~ AssoaATES a Kc '
`° Z ~
5 ~ ~ ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS F`E.
2 -
~ ~ ~ ENNICE, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD ~ sw. xsnsiw o.,E .rvo~e
~ RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
REVISIONS

MATCHLJNE -SEE SHEET 1B
• .
C •
2
m
n
O
•
C
v
tll
y
~S
l • •
1 ::• .:•
N N
O O
z z
in m m
m o D
. •
T
A O O •
N Z 2
O m m •
z m m
m
v
y
~ • •
•
2
y Z 2
m m
~f A .
. N
. Z
. m
. O
'0R~
ry
`te'e
~y~
~~~
n
x
C
z
m
0
~ o
z
o ~ ~ ~ d!~
~ O WD
~ _
yx
m n
nyy
O
F ~
m
O~
O
f~ ~ Y A SUBMITTED WITH RESTORATION PLAN (80%) AUO 07
t~ ~ - ~ UT TO CRAB CREEK ~ KC I
~ v ~ ~ ~ STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION ~ssaa~TLS a ru . ~ g
~ ~ ENGINEERS PLANNERS SCIENTISTS ._~
Z N
~ ~ `~ ENNICE, ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA a6ol slx FORKS RoaD ' I s~ ~~.,~• o.,E ~,Eo
~+ RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
REVISIONS

r
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix A
NCNHP and SHPO Correspondence
NCHP Site Survey Report
Rare and Endangered Plant Survey

•••i••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
U
N
'~
O
N
O
'~
c~
Z
Z

•
~sT^~4
~wn~
~r.~~~„~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Parr I3. Santllxck, Adtninistramr
i~liehael F, Easley, Governor
I_isbeth C. Evans, Secretory
jcFfrcy j- Cmw, Deputy Secretary
January 12, 2007
- tlpril Helms
KCI Associates
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
X601 Six Forks Road
~ Raleigh, NC 27609
UfEicc of Archives and History
Division of f-listocieal Resoueees
Da~rid Draolr, Director
Re: EEP, Crab Creels 5tre.-un and Wetland Restoration, East of Sparta, Alleghany County, ER 06-2971
. Dear Ms. Helms:
Thank you for your letter of November 8, 2006, concerning the above project. We apologize for the delay in
• our response.
~ We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect any historic structures.
- There are no known-recorded archaeological sites ~vidin the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based
an dle topagraplic and hydrological situation, there is a very high probability for the presence of prehistoric or
• historic archaeological sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
~ evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
Potential effects on unknown resources mast be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of dze appropriate site Forms,
- should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they axe available and well in advance of any
- construction activities.
• A list of archaeological consultants tvho have conducted or expressed an interest in contract worl. in North
Carolina is available at «><yw.arch.dcr.state.nc.usf consu[ts.htxn. Tlie archaeologists listed, ar any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct die recommended survey.
- The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
- Advisory Council on I-iistol_ic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 3G CFR
Part 800.
• Locntinn hfailing Arldress Telephone/1?ax
AAhiINISTRATION 507 N. Iiloont Street, halugh NC. 4617 Alail Service Csnter, Raleigh NC 27699-•1617 [phone]/733-8653
- RESTORATION 515 N. E3lount Stn~t,141cigh NC 4617 Mail Scn~icc G:ntrr, Italcigh NC 27699-4617 (919)7]3-GS17/715-tE3(}t
SIIRVEY & Pi.ANNING 115 N. Hlowu Street, Ralt3gh, NC •1(117 AEail Sctttice Cr ntcr, Rhlcigh NC 27699--1617 (9[9)733-(1545/715-4BIN

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
cont<zct Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763, est. 246. In ail future
communication concerning this project, please cite die above referenced tracking number.
Si erely,
~~~~ .
Peter Sandbeck
i
•

e~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
November 20, 2006
April Helms
KCI Associates of NC
Landmark Center II Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh NC 27609
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: Natural Heritage Review Crab Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, Project Number 12053743H
Dear Ms. Helms:
The Natural Heritage Program has records of rare plant and animal species and a significant natural heritage area within
the project area shown on your map of 8 November 2G06. The Ennice Meadow Bog Significant Natural Heritage Area is
known to support the following rare species:
American Speedwell (Veronica americana) - NC Significantly hire
Bog Turtle (Gleptyms muhlenbergii) - US Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened (S/A), NC Threatened
Additional rare species are known from the Edmonds Meadow Bog and Savannah Church Bog and Seep Significant
Natural Heritage Areas, less than one mile from the project site. These species, which may also occur at the project site if
suitable habitat is present, are listed below:
Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) - NC Significantly Rare
Fen Sedge (Cayex sp. 2) - US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Species of Concern, NC Significantly Rare
Gray's Lily (Cilium grayi) - US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Species of Concern, NC Threatened-Special Concern
Marsh Bellflower (Campanula aparinoides) - NC Significantly Rare
Northern White Beaksedge (Rhynchospora alba) - NC Significantly Rare
Additional records of rare species have been reported from this general area, with vague directions. These species may
occur at the project site if suitable habitat is present:
Eastern Small-footed Myotis (Myotis leibii) - US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Species of Concern, NC Special
Concern
Savanna Sparrow (Passerculus sandwiehensis} - NC Significantly Rare
Because of the high potential for rare species and high quality natural areas to occur within your project site, a careful
survey should be conducted during the growing season prior to project work. If rare species are located, extreme care
should be used to avoid impacting the rare species as part of the restoration project. The use ol•Natural Heritage Program
data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet www.ncnhp.org
An Equal Opportunity f Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarolina
~atura!!r~

You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Progra-n database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of rare plants and
animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8700 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
/~ .~ .~
Misty Franklin, Botanist
NC Natural Heritage Program
NorthCarolina
~aturallt~

•
• Significant Natural Heritage Area Report 03 August 2007
•
-Name Ennice Meadow Boe
. IDENTIFIERS
Site ID 545
Site Alias ENNICE MEADOW BOG/MARSH; THIS SITF. HAD ONCF. BEEN
• CALLED EDMONDS MEADOW BOG
Macro Site Name
.Mega Site Name
•
• Edmonds Meadow Bog is approximately 1 mile to the east in the
same watershed.
.Site Relations
Owner Abbr. Owner Owner Comments
•PRV PRIVATE
• LOCATORS
-County Alleghany (NC)
.Latitude 363309N Longitude 0805822W
.Quad Cumberland Knob Watershed Upper New
.Directions North and south of NC 18; opposite its junction with SR 1508; 2 miles west of Edmonds; about 1.5 miles east of Ennice; and
- 0.8 mile south of the Virginia border.
SITE DESCRIPTION
.Minimum Elevation: 2,850.00 Feet 869.00 Meters
Survey R
• Mazimum Elevation: 2,860.00 Feet 872.00 Meters
•
-Site Description A small marshy bog on a stream floodplain terrace. The bog is a mosaic ofrush-dominated marsh and thickets of
alder, with some red maple and willow along the creek. The community is degraded by clearing, grazing, and
• flood-deposited sediment. Rare species at the site include: Veronica americana, Sanguisorba canadensis, and
Clemmys muhlenbergii.
-Key Enviro Factors Soil saturation, flooding, sediment deposition
• Climate Description
•
• Land Use History
.Cultural Features
•AdditionalTopics W# BOG
SITE DESIGN
-Site Mapped Y -Yes Mapped Date
- Designer Alan Smith
• Boundary JustiScation Boundary is limit of saturated soil
• Primary and Secoedary Area 33.10 Acres Primary Area 33.10 Acres
• Site Comments
Last Visit 1989-07-31
• SITE SIGNIFICANCE
• Site SigniScance C
• Site SigniScance Comments Small cluster of rare species and poor quality Southern Appalachian Bog (Northern Subtype).
• Biodivsig rating B3 -High
• Biodivsig Comments D-ranked Southern Appalachian Bog (Northern Subtype) (G1T1)
- Otber Values
• Other Values Comments
•
•

Significant Natural Heritage Area Report 03 A
t 2007
ugus
Name Ennice Meadow Boti
•
Protection Urgency P3 -Definable threat/opportunity but not within 5 years
•
Protection Urgency Comments
_
Management Urgency M3 -Needed within 5 years to maintain quality

Management Urgency Comments
-
REAL ESTATE/PROTECTION
-
Conservation Intentions Registry
Number of Tracts

Designation
•
Protection Comments No protection status

MANAGEMENT
-
Land Use Comments The area has been heavily grazed.
-
Natural Hazard Comments
-
Exotics Comments
Offsite The surrounding area is old pasture and young forest.

Information Needs
•
Management Needs
Managed Area Relations
ELEMENT OCCURpr:NCES -
Scientific N
ame Common name G Rank S Rank
Glyptemys muhlenbergii EO Rank EO ID •
Bog Turtle G3 S2
Veronica americans American, Speedwell D 14799 -
GS S2

Southern appalachian bog (northern subtype) B?
15671
-
GIG2T1T2 SIS2 D
8685
REFERENCES •
Reference Code Full Citation ,
U93SMI02NCUS Smith, A.B. 199,, A Survey of Mountain Wetland Communities. Report to NC Natural Heritage .
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, NC.

•
VERSION
Version Date 1993-03-18 -
Version Author Smith -

•

0
N
4J
N
~--~
.~
r~
V

f~ ~_ _..~_,..~,-._
., 1~iT-;~ ~L
/""~ €.~ -.t-~s't~;.s.s- ~~ ,c~~. /.wc„1rr '~'~ ~~r.+*~,/J. .-~~u.e~tvt~r.. ~rlw-~••.. "~"~-:R- ,J.
~r~~Y,..`{.,, /'~r~ ..:-,rr-~(f f.~ a ~!~ ~.L lrk:.~ ~.t.!e-y ~ GLI.~. ,dam
_._.- ~...~. ,...m _.. ---
' f!"4 i;'-("~~t' :.i~~s? _~Zc~l.t15~~?;'Sc3 ~:'~'";. '~~<~[~c-w€~
~~
;~ ,. , ,, -~,.r._.
_~_ ~ ~i1L^tE'~Y~STI'~It ~ _7`3A t ~ -~ C
~j ~ d'1+-~L~'G,J G+vt...2i .~'tl, ~ ~~tG~-L•~.'( G~'~`r ,11,,'Yktl't~.~'~.,.L~~( ~ # dt +"~t~~"- "-'?~ %'t<-.~.~_.. ~,
`?TJ n~'ir „ :' „~~ }1 ~ ~ - - L
.. *.T .-1T; , ± :;'_`? ~ ~ . <7 i~. C? ~ W =. F" i3 t1Cc 4',G7,. SY1t2'7 t~ 1. s:'.`i r I.=?. ~ ~ 1 ~ C'~.3 :`: l I~-'..
r.~.. f ,~.~- ..ate-e.:~ , na.~-_.,,~ ~. >ri-~!L~ ~,~,,~.~,.~` t~v

~$`iC`., `' E r'~,~ t rCig ~~3fE?: 'Lf O t ~ ~'~~f~~
x { _ :`.f? 2'"ct. •:'j C± . '` '. t:(`i ?''t?.3 c'? ,~7?P1#~. ~:,i Yi"1 J~t°1 .•Y 1'Tw J
fi _ ~'
j1 ~,-r, r : ~::+1 ~ E' ; ~Y] r2 d f f'? ~~'~-sL.~.'.4~ri .Tali "3'~l.L:s"~

•
•
•
•
•
~.
i$F±t~3:Fu-'.~i l~_ _ :fi' ~1E'#' ul~;~~ C~":IT2;1Il:li_I.~~ 7P,~~
Ic~r e~c_~ 1€~sc'~7.L)~.
}a - _--ni:-~~1+;331 ~~Y"ti~';~Lz?'~,
~~~-' e -.._..li.. - :1Z t.` k 1IItJ,". ~s`~..Il {. .~-(' . ."T }' _. ~c`l,,
t;. y ."~~'Ct.~1~ivT1 1"1 I~ ~1C~w~z~~'~ tae ~ ~l.~a`-:LC3e .., ..:.:j~'2^ C'Gti~^'tillii-1.f?S r
rte`; =.~a~~i}y & r~nd~tzc~rl,
'- `.~.
.> 7.
'.:_ .
._=~~i~3a i`~'t~,,'`~,t1./F ~~'€'b'r`tc'-r$'C-E~r'/'~`x1J' '9~,~~'y ~.~f~,Cf.Y2.~'f~~~. ~ --r" /7~r+J''f~..i ~ --,~'~ ~+v~'t5~i~~t~i~s,
i~ ~ t
?'~; y f'- s~-'a~.-z ._' ~"~~-w~+•,;+" ~ t-`?,~/-'S--~l S#*-,..: t`'-t e7'.<'-~'~-.:' mil .~~`"~"~I`v~y,`-'f< P~,`~,
bj+r"Y'r.~.v Uf v -~. .^''9:$d,.,>~'a~",,y,.+t ~~il-fi•.t;t~.tt.:_ ,..~'Yt>~t-N+Y"''~j ,~w-~ „+''~,.t"7.~` rN72fs ~/^~ 1"r1'
' -f-t~''`r~e.,~" ;'~-~-~ ~c.+.~.,+,r~i. -~ t-'~ ,,,~ 'l'am
~je p _ ~,f"~ . ~
..` ~~d3?.ir4<- ,~~a~*r"y~',~..f„~ 'i~Lt^va`4+.~+,....,...f ,:-e~'~' f'K""~~~ ''J 4-4`~~`~ys''(.~'e'~' '~`'2~v ~"' ,
'. Y +s~+E~+~,i.~ .,~A~t'S~~F~Y"~L!£S'tsv+f L R~.-_'l..~lt~ Y ~G~q~,-+1,~:.#f f ,_.. .~ ~- ,ryi.,.s--~Cs_gv,.
if F ' r ??"
",
,,
h
,fir>~.-a.rrar,rvs..
- ~. ,~y+
- //
-:1~--s:: ,~r;~~. =~'...:.~-~~~z~,-_ ,~ f .,.y'~'-ram--~ :,;~
- ~- {
_~f
t ~_ -~~

r 1
k «' ~ b t v[ >+'S ~ ~z;y,;•~ 4 af~u to '"

''1~:ty r ~e;rs (,.?ri *s'<~ ,.7~:C','n.,.,."l'l, ...-:~@ i='t ,~,}`r Z"*~.~~~~-~} ~ttt"-~;

=~r~:~,-3~r.i ._-,~-;~Y ~` ~ ~.,~.-i,-~^~sl. ~;t.~r.c3 fr~~n~ p~~t~z:-~ gar, ~~~~rciz~}
y.-.C7:'Tl°`1It:. 7~~'ff ,. ~•nr?~~' ~'C'~^~.r~7?f'..~E?(l~ ~ ~_7.i'F ~l:;t:~ f~PfaC?'%~'.'i?~

__..
{~
-~~~l"~=.z..c--~f~

=i~ :ic~ is __ ~i'_e: ~t;:ic3~ ,~i.;tx.'~y ~r.e3j'c~r z-rs~'~ e~-~rn:at.# ~e. z~~r~ ,°,~,, , etr,. j:
< . „ ., . .
_,_ ~ I~'i'_1~SCia~.
~,- ~-6w.+..ciC ..~'6^°zq f,~'iw"L"L- -ai# .1~"t ~ .+'~.sWC-rL..+~•.'- ~~' ~_ ~ ~f'
b f ~f~
v°YEC3~c?rte
., ,..~
-, c
.. -
' -
~'~'-+~t^~~ ,~''#.~~~~f~:~• ~,. .s ~' +°a'`+,K.`~.. -G~~~+ ~cs~='~+frs~t~~at~;
~<~~ ~ `
~~.
2 t... _ _.~T.., it,_-;:S `3'. 1 i%_i'j~tTl~ __ ~'~2?~"t.~~3: tt`t~~~C"i k~._ ~t_"t-m'r541:.~~
f:_ _- 'F'.t. _ r ~""^,.lT ,. %ti:t_%;r .. -',77. ~~"IUtlF.. [lE'~'c~r3r s~ ETtr~1. `..:':...°1 i cs
L" irT1~YC?`t...
..I"'~` r4f ...'~', `?:_C.FS r3:^, ~_LL`~',, i'.' ~?:76.~~1:t,^a37~ ~£'f3G:ar3q, IJ~C?C"~{_,~t~ i'T,~iltl~r'.=~~ F~~,)
~_,~
G'rJ:_ i! t ~"
~~
-r-"rt,.Ga-~.
~~'

:v}"':1~ VC~IIr :.i t12'T.Ft?~l S~.: tL:i~'~~!'1 T,rF}t~t!t? i`~ '~I.(~; ~.
*d a_ , f~;~r ~v[j~~;,, ~L why': .~~~?~ca:-aj:
a
~~ra~.~ ~1,.~, c~i1, z-~y.'~, - c}r ~~rh~±: ~rsc~ st~t~~
-''.ttt~** s kr:-:~4 -l<=r3+-. -tt:l~ ~J~.st ;~_tW; }~, ~~..lsrt..~{
._..._`'~'. _t..~~
...`: n ••- F '• -i:r~ u€~ N.~t~°.: oaf t.~ sr tic}~n~3 tz~~ rig,,.>dt~e nr_ ~~;~~iGpriat~, Fr;~ „ht~w
c .:~:~;, r~ -;~;,., r~i~t_v~ a~~~ t..irjn of ~~s;an~srsi.ti~s, c#~:c., ~~rtic.~l.~t~1~• if
~;~rsW':. ~,^ 1' -,"'"z-+_~.~„*,pc3 r~t7 ~tt::-s>>'~a<3 k.rspn m~~t? .

~~.._ _ _-
-
-- ~"~~r _ ._-

~ _ _

_.

,. ~_.. .. _
~
.... ~ 1
f _

T ~~

/
.~
~• is C .. fem.

~
_. __ _ _
.
,- •-. ___ ___

...._ ~. _e?ano::~~a
F
•__.-
_
_
_
~
_.. _ :.
-
~- i~!1~. ~3 •~'~ikia4ti4 ~ ..
i
i -.._. ~
~a 4'S
~ _
- -

r6::t ....7 ~l1~~~?
.~~5~

t

_ f
„
~
.,,,.. ~'~~~ z ~ ... _, _ .-. _~ _ - __ __.._
.~.. : 3 _ _ C ._..1L.. .. _ .. _ _ ~ - . , _ .. _..
..
yy i _ ~

~- '~ lF.a

" _~.
n

_ ~ _ ~
~...~ __., ~~, 'Ctk- 4 r'~~ _.._._ ~. .~ ~ .-
~- _.. its.! .» M'~!~:S _..__ __ .______ ______ _ ._ ..__ ~ __._

~~- --
1.. .~.~ - ~ --
_ .. ----_ _-_-- -

_ W.

...
,~ ,

~ ~~;~ ~f ,i .
~ I
~;~ 4 sr;. I ~
3 . ~ p
"; ,
1
r ~ 1 ;',
r , ~ ~ ~
i r ~ t ~ , ~ ~ ,~
1
~

71
ti
~~
~

~~ ~
„_ ~, ~ ~ , li

~ ~ _ ~ ~

~

t

v
..
.1r ~ `~
It a
~ ~
'"
~
- ,,
,

~ ~~~

~

~
~ ~
~ ~ h, t I ~

5
~ ~ i
,
. ~
F
r
~
rI i
,~
r

~"
}}

.
• ~
. ~ ,~

i
,, ;'~

Y
~;
ew
'

`

_ ~
'"`~
7
~ ~ ~V~

e ~
!o

,.
~ ~
t
/"
c

i ~ ~~
...
'j

[

,

, '

~

~
~
}
'. i
,. f

'r t ~ ,,,~-
~ , ~1,
~
f . r
. ' ~
~ ''

t
i .i
~

~
'
v i `.
' ~

(j 1
v i
1 t i
~,

i
'.
r

i

i
Y )
~
~
` ~
/ 4

i

!
' `
r ~
y~ ~
A ~

a ~1 ~<i
~

~ ~ ~ r• >

_~~
i t

~

i
t f ~.
> ~

.

:
, ~
..
~
_

e
~

l
i
r Y

f

~
~'

f
5
`
Y

,

'

1

1
1 ~

z

:, ~ A
~
,.~

1
i

~ '
. ~
._. _. ,
,,

1

1
4

.. mow. '

. 1 ,~
~`
-yT...«
,.•
- '
f

,a
~
~.1~

-

c

~

i

~
~

•

w

3

~

i
wr _._._ ,- .. ~ .t
1
:... # ,

r

t ! M~ ~.... ..
~ - ~ 1~~1
1

i 1!
f ~ ~
t:IS~?
i ~ - i

r

~ i
r' ~ .~
~ ~ ',
'
f,
1 1 ~.

~ 1}
~.

~ ~ z
~

<

"

~

i

i
'
114 h,t i+

'

'

II
~ ~
~ ~~. y , }
w
i

~

i

~

~

~.
1
~s ~
`
~ t

i
~ _ _.
~

~
.

~

1
i
J

' : ~' ~ r

_-

i

e
e .

~ F ~
' " ~.
e

.
-
~
~
$
i
- _.
e
1
~... e
v
I 1
,.
.,

.r

.
~ ~.

a 1

..

,
,,,
,,
.
~ ~
~', ~ ~:~,
~,
~e>
.t
1 ..,
~

~
~ t'.. ~
~

r.0
..
y
\
~ ,.

1:1
E
;.
r'

.,
a ~ \

~.

~.

'
~"

~ ~ _
'~
1 ;
, .,

"~
f
.

~
r

i

,1

`'°,~, ;,

0
_,. __,.,, ~ ~
c
.~ ~ ' E '
.. ~

..
~„
~.......e._.~..~ ~ «_._,,,,r
. r ~ _
,,~ ,.

~
-. <
_

. , t

,
~~

_.

,
~ _
~ i
i
i ' i
....,....__ _.._... f, ~:~
.,
i i s ra A t
.~,.
. ~ _~ _ n - - _. ~ .a._.i ~

.. ~:_ - - _ _, ~ _ _.._. _ _

~ r
.~._ _ .

> F' b'
t
l ~
~ j
- ,
1 , ~ ~
~
'
•••••••••~•••~ •~ ••!••~
•-~•• •• •••i• ••
~~
•~ •~•••

N
CC3
'~
4)
4J
bA
C~
w
'"C~
G~
W

•
•
•
Rare and Endangered Plant Survey - UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site
Site Description
Location: Directly north of NC 18 approximately 2 miles west of Edmonds, NC in NE
• Alleghany County (36.5528 degrees N, 80.9732 degrees W)
Community Type: Southern Appalachian Bog (Northern Subtype)
Size: Approximately 2.1 acres
• Team: K. Knight-Meng and C. Van Der Wiele, KCI Associates of NC
Date: September 24, 2007
Temperature: Warm - ~80 degrees F -sunny but hazy
Precipitation: The site has been experiencing severe drought conditions since August 14, 2007.
i Last significant rainfall: 1.51 inches recorded on September 15, 2007 at Sparta 2
SE (318158) Weather Station
• Growing Season: May 2 -October 6
Survey Methods and Results
A site walk of the site was conducted using random GPS points created in GIS to ensure coverage of the
- area in question. The drier portions of the site, which were generally found in the northeastern third of the
bog, were dominated by large thickets of goldenrod (Solidago patina) and purple-stemmed aster
(Symphyotrichum puniceum) interspersed with swamp rose (Rosa palustris) and arrowleaf tearthumb
(Polygonum sagittatum). A dispersed stream/seep system was still flowing despite the drought conditions
and was bringing more water to the southwestern portion of the site. This area had standing water within
~' six inches and consisted of a sedge community with many individuals of jewelweed (Impatiens capensis)
- and arrowleaf tearthumb.
w The site was searched.for the following rare and threatened species. None of these species were found
during the site search.
Marsh bellflower (Campanula aparinoides)
Fen sedge (Carex sp. 2) (No identifying characteristics found for this species) Federal Species of
. Concern and NC Significantly Rare
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) Federally Threatened (S/A), NC Threatened
• Alder flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) NC Significantly Rare
Gray's lily (Cilium grayi) Federal Species of Concern, NC Significantly Rare
Eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) Federal Species of Concern, NC Threatened-Special Concern
Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) NC Significantly Rare
- Northern white beaksedge (Rhynchospora alba) NC Significantly Rare
American Speedwell (Veronica americana) NC Significantly Rare
- While looking for rare and threatened species listed above, the following plant species were noted at the
site:
Herbaceous Layer
Agrimony (Agrimonia parv~ora)
Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum)
- Shallow sedge (Carex lurida)
Sedge species (Carex spp.)
White turtlehead (Chelone glabra)
Dayflower (Commelina spp.)
. Linear-leaf willowherb, bog willowherb (Epilobium leptophyllum)
Swamp sunflower (Helianthus angustifolius)

r

Jewelweed /touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis)
Soft rush (Juncus effusus)
Wild mint (Mentha arvensis)
Monkey flower (Mimulus ringens)
Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis)
Arrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum)
Cutleaf coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata)
Bristle grass (Setaria sp.)
Rough-leaved goldenrod (Solidago patula)
Purple-stemmed aster (Symphyotrichum puniceum Aster puniceusJ)
Skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus)
New York ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis)
Shrub and Vine Lam
Red maple (Ater rubrum)
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
Virginia clematis (Clematis virginia)
Swamp rose (Rosa palustris)
Blackberry (Rubus spp.)
Silky willow (Salix sericea)

z
n
d
~ ~
o ~
o' ~
~ Gd
0
~.
0
~.

- North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection Section
Watershed Assessment Team (WAT)
• July, 2007

~ Stream Restaratian Monitoriu~ Plan
- Unnamed Tributary to Crab Creek (UTCC)
New River Basin
~ Subbasin OS-07-03
~ This document is a monitoring plan for a stream restoration project in a UTCC in Alleghany
~ County. A conservation easement agreement was recently finalized between the landowner and
~ the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for approximately 6000 feet of stream length and
- associated riparian buffers. The conservation easement was the result of ongoing local
watershed planning (LWP) by EEP within the larger Little River watershed. Several components
of stream and wetland restoration are planned including wetland and stream buffer
- creation enhancement and bog turtle habitat enhancement/preservation. Construction is
scheduled to begin during the latter part of 2008.
-
~1 The purpose of this plan is to provide details relative to baseline (pre restoration) and subsequent
- (post restoration) monitoring and data analyses. The objective of monitoring here is to provide
evidence of a change or improvement in water quality, hydrology and habitat functions as a
result of the restoration project. There is broad consensus that measuring success of restoration
- projects is essential, but methods to systematically and appropriately determine success remain
- elusive (Ryder et al., 2005) as well as which ecosystem-level processes can serve as good
indicators of functional integrity (Gessner and Chauvet, 2002). Methods to measure watershed
functions (or in this case, improved function or success due to a stream restoration project) using
- surrogate indicators were recommended by the Watershed Needs Assessment Team (WNAT,
- 2003). Penrose (2003) recommended the use of aquatic insect assemblages as evidence of
improved ecological function as a measure of restoration success.

- Monitoring Goals
1. Identify water quality problems that may exist relative to fungicide use on pumpkins. A
fungicide and its residues may be entering the stream in storm water runoff affecting
~ aquatic life. Benthic macroinvertebrates and storm water chemistry may provide
- evidence of toxic inputs. Details for monitoring are provided below.
2. Provide evidence of change in water quality, habitat and hydrologic function as a result
~ of the restoration project in various indicators outlined below (compared to existing
~ conditions).
• Improved water quality functions may be evidenced by an increase in nutrient
retention (i.e., total dissolved nitrogen), thermal regulation; TSS load reduction (in
- storm conditions) and, changes in benthic macroinvertebrate biotic indices that reflect
• improvements in water quality, or an increase or decrease of certain water quality
indicator species;
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Final ver2djw UTCC Monitoring Plan, July 2007
1

i
•

••••••••••••••••••••••••••i•••••••••••••••••

i
i
• Improved habitat function may be evidenced by a favorable change in benthic
assemblages as reflected by improved habitat conditions (e.g. certain keystone species
or habitat specialists (Penrose, 2003); improvement of overall habitat and
microhabitat heterogeneity (e.g., less riffle embeddedness, increased pool variety);
and,
• Hydrologic function improvements may be evidenced by improved streambank
stability (e.g., lower bank erosion hazard index (BEHI) and an increase in certain
benthic species. The type of restoration design will dictate other post monitoring
activities that maybe conducted.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Final ver2djw UTCC Monitoring Plan, July 2007
2

•••••••••••••••••i••••••••!•••••••••••••••••~
f ~ ., _
., -, ,
.~
.,
s 1 +. ~
`. ~ '~ ti _
~~ , ~~ ~ r w
. ~ 9b ~ ~ ~ s >, .
.. ~, ~
~ ....
1 , ~, ~ x_ ~~ , ~ _,~.
~ ~ ~~ ~~ MOllltoring location ~--._S ~''% ~,-~~'"".) ~..`,~ ''~ . { ~~> ~ !a`~ '
~" {{ r
~'`~ "3 ~'~~„C Streamprojectarea ~ 4_~ ~ '~ "~j ~ '
4_ ~y ,._ - ~ . .,~,.
. .~ ~ ,"
'~ ~ A. Catchment identifier ~_= ,~,.~,~; .-, , ;..
_,
J~ ~
i ..
~ a • r:•-
1~ g, ~ „i ., ~ -
~ ~• i~«- • ~~ ~-,.. t ~ '\
_ ~ ^
-_.~
'~ .. ,1t.LF;f:RA1Y ('O •^ •_..~_.-^. -_.,_ ~'1Rt:iV1A
_.~. _
sv. __..__.~^~_____
p ~ .. mc.r. iu
d'
w.~ ` .,
. ..
•. .
~.. ,.
.~~ ._ ~ ~ ... , e~ _ ~~
,
- ~:K,
- . P.nniAp ~ ~,aus '~u,
.,
,
..
"".
, , "'^+r -
~ .,......,_, I.
e5r
~, ,.
_~
.
,~ .
J,
'I ~ '.
~. vaa Greek r •~ ~r '~'~-.~'' ~''°""~" 4'~,
. ;,
~~ ~ ~ i G L AI C R E E K ~ _`_ r` ,~,'°, 4., ~.,~
,,
,-
_ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~.
~:~ ,
.., . , _ d
}F
JI 2'ti-s j'UNw .j ~
~,~ ~+ _ ~
~.
,~
r~ :.~~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ , ~ - ; r ~ ~ 1 inch = 3330 ft.
,.
'~ y ~ ,- ~ - 4 4 ~ . - - " .,t. ~, ~ .,rte ~,...;~ i. ~~~ ~ .', ~•
~~~ ,~~-_ ,{ T,=~~~'~
Figure 1. Topographic map of UTCC subwatershed, catchment boundaries and monitoring locations. ~ •`" ~,.

- Monitoring Approach and Methods
~ General
- According to the Environmental Resources Technical Report (ERTR) provided by KCI
Associates of NC (KCI), several problems associated with the channel and riparian areas were
~ identified including agricultural runoff, ditching, channelization, bed and bank instability,
incision, and overwidened stream segments. They concluded there were functional losses related
. to habitat, water quality and hydrology. The goals of the restoration plan proposed by EEP are to
restore terrestrial and aquatic diversity and improve water quality.

• It is generally thought that wetlands (Jones et al., 1976; USEPA 1992) and riparian areas
• (USEPA, 2005; Wenger, 1999; Hill, 1996) provide a variety of water quality functions that
maintain good water quality. Wetland soils and riparian area vegetation combine physical
processes of filtering and biological processes of nutrient uptake and denitrification to transform,
. retain and remove sediment and chemical pollutants. Riparian vegetation and wetland areas can
• intercept surface runoff, subsurface flow and groundwater preventing pollutant discharges to
surface waters (USEPA, 2005a). Riparian forests provide shading to moderate thermal
pollution; improve aquatic habitat by providing cover; increase stream bank stability; supply
- large organic debris to increase channel heterogeneity and provide substrates for microflora to
flourish increasing biological nutrient processing. In addition, small streams such as the UTCC
are known to retain and transform important amounts of nutrients (Peterson et al., 2001;
Sweeney et al., 2004) and provide other beneficial ecosystem services (Meyer et al., 2003).
~ Based on the brief literature review above, there is little doubt that a project such as the one
proposed by KCI for the UTCC could not result in benefits to water quality and improved
functions or ecological processes. Providing evidence of improvement would support an
• argument that restoration projects are worth the effort and could help to improve the nature of
future restoration efforts within this type of landscape and the broader ecoregion.

- Measuring water quality improvements due to a change in land management or installation of
BMPs within a watershed presents a variety of challenges due to the time and resources
necessary to factor out natural and other variability (climate, season, sampling and lab error,
~ upstream land use changes) and to account for those improvements that may take several years to
reveal themselves (NCSU, 1995). This is most likely true regarding assessment and
measurement of improved ecologic function related to a stream restoration projects. Penrose et
al., (2003) developed a monitoring strategy to assess ecosystem functions of restored streams and
~ to define success criteria in North Carolina using benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages. He
. found that some taxa recolonized certain restored habitats relatively soon after construction (two
years). It was unclear as of this writing whether additional important taxa would recolonize
other specific restored habitats. A method to assess ecological condition of streams using shifts
. in functional feeding group ratios (FFG) was presented by Hauer and Lamberti (2007).
• Applying of a version of this method may help to detect improvements associated with stream
restoration.

- There are techniques to measure key in-stream ecological processes or functions directly, of
which some version of may have practical applications within a restoration or watershed
assessment setting. Sweeney et al. (2004) conducted a study in 16 streams in Piedmont
- NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
- Final ver2djw UTCC Monitoring Plan, July 2007
4

i watersheds in Pennsylvania and Maryland to show that riparian deforestation reduces stream
habitat and compromises in-stream processing of pollutants. They measured in-stream nutrient
processing, respiration rates, pesticide degradation and other processes to support their
hypothesis. Litter breakdown rates as Gessner and Chauvet suggested (2002) would be a good
- candidate for assessing functional integrity because of its central role in stream ecosystem
functioning and relative ease of implementation. Currently however, resource limitations and
other reasons preclude direct measurements of processes in the context of watershed assessments
• at this time. The monitoring we undertake for this project may help to develop better assessment
methods and techniques for evaluating in-stream processes relative to stream restoration projects
- and watershed assessments in the future.

- Approach
The UT to Crab Creek is a small catchment draining an area of 2.7 square miles (Table 1). The
restoration project is within a smaller catchment (Figure 1, catchment B) draining 0.6 square
~ miles that is "nested" in the larger catchment. A complicating factor is the relatively large
• headwater drainage areas upstream of the project (Figure 1, catchments A and C) that when
combined contribute 75% of total drainage area. Water quality from these two catchments will
obscure downstream water quality. Monitoring locations are located in close proximity to the
- restoration project minimizing downstream input interference. Initial data evaluations will
- portend potential problems related to monitoring sensitivity. Loads would be calculated for each
pollutant or parameter on asub-catchment basis using flow data and pollutant concentration.
~ Loads from upstream catchments will be subtracted from the total catchment load to obtain the
• load from the "nested catchment". Load data would then be normalized by upstream catchment
• drainage area and stream length. A similar approach was used by NCDWQ (2007) as a method
to rank catchments in a synoptic nutrient survey conducted for the Little River LWP in 2006.
~ Schilling and Spooner (2006) used this technique (among others) as a method to study the effects
• of land use change on subwatershed nitrate loads.
A paired watershed design will be used for chemicaUphysical data analyses (NCSU, 1995). In
- terms of data analysis the pre-construction baseline data collection period is referred to as the
- calibration period and is meant to discern a predictable interrelationship between data from the
upstream (control) catchments and the downstream (treatment) catchment. Once the treatment
(restoration project) is in place, subsequent data and analyses will attempt to understand the new
- interrelationship between the upstream (control) catchments and the downstream (treatment)
~ catchment (MRCS, 2003). Non-parametric test(s) could be used to determine differences
between parameter loads as explained above.

! Functional indicator data could also be analyzed using correlation and recursive partitioning
• analyses to elucidate interrelationships between benthic assemblages, habitat, microhabitat and
water quality data. These analyses could help develop other methods for measuring certain
ecosystem functions.

A nearby "reference" subwatershed will not be needed for this monitoring design. The two
upstream catchments will serve as control catchments in a paired watershed design where no
- restoration work will occur. We generally know water quality conditions in this planning area.
• There are recent data available (benthic and water quality) collected in 2006 from several
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
• Final ver2djw UTCC Monitoring Plan, July 2007
5

catchments in the planning area that will be used for comparison purposes to provide insights on
overall watershed functions as they currently exist in the UTCC. Several of these streams could
be revisited to conduct a more in depth assessment related to indicators of water quality, habitat
and hydrologic functions for this purpose if resources allow. Obviously, the stream restoration
project design, however, needs to be based on nearby reference conditions.
Monitoring Methods and Locations
Proposed monitoring locations and catchment descriptions are summarized in Table 1. Figure 1
• provides a topographic view of the subwatershed and catchment delineations. The Division of
Water Quality Watershed Assessment Team (WAT) would conduct the monitoring in
collaboration with EEP staff (monitoring and others), consultants and local stakeholders.
~ Table 1. UT to Crab Creek (UTCC) monitoring locations and catchment
• descriptions.
Catchment Drainage Area Monitoring Location
(Square miles) Latitude Longitude
~ A 1.66 36.55560 -80.96381
. B 0.62 36.55218 -80.97362
C 0.44 36.56052 -80.96592
~ Total 2.72

~ Chemical and Physical Analyses
- Field parameters (dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH, and temperature) nutrients (total
- phosphorus, ammonia, TKN and nitrite-nitrate), residue (suspended, fixed and volatile), sulfate,
chloride, calcium, magnesium and potassium will be collected at each location in baseflow
conditions. The chemistry parameters listed above are indicators of important ecosystem
• functions that may provide evidence of elemental cycling and retention that occurs in baseflow
. conditions. They will also provide evidence of existing water quality conditions related to past
and present landuse that may change as a result of the restoration project. Table 2 provides a list
~ of parameters and analytical methods.
-
Water temperature will be monitored hourly during the months of April through November at
each location (in all conditions) using data loggers.

. Nutrients and residue only will be collected during storm events. The degree of elemental
cycling occurring during storm events is of lesser concern than the amount of sediment and
nutrients leaving the catchments (i.e., retained on site). However, following fungicide
• applications in the fall, samples for mancozeb will also be conducted at each location.
Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and specific conductance will be measured in-situ
with handheld field instrumentation (YSI Model 85 and Accumet AP61) during each monitoring
event. Samples for other parameters will be submitted to the DWQ Laboratory Section for
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Final ver2djw UTCC Monitoring Plan, July 2007
6

• analysis with one exception as noted below. Chemical and physical monitoring will be
~ conducted according to the procedures described in NCDWQ's Standard Operation Procedure
Sample analyses will be performed by NCDWQ's Laboratory except for fungicide analysis
- (mancozeb), which will be conducted by North Carolina Department of Agriculture (at no cost).
DWQ's lab has not developed a lab procedure to test for mancozeb. Results are usually
available from the laboratory approximately one month following sample collection. Results
. will be evaluated upon receipt from the laboratory and made available to interested parties soon
• thereafter.
Velocity measurements will be conducted using a hand held portable flowmeter (FLO-MATE
• Mode12000) as part of each baseflow-monitoring event. Stream velocity times cross sectional
area will provide flow measurements to use in pollutant load calculations for comparisons
normalized by catchment area and stream length. Measurements of velocity during storm events
~ will be conducted if personal safety permits. Otherwise, storm flows can be estimated from the
- flood frequency curves developed by W.K. Dickson during the Phase I assessment activities for
the Little River LWP in 2004 or by other methods. Staff gauges maybe deployed at each
~ location to assist with stormflow estimates. Flow data estimates collected by KCI may also be
- used for these purposes. On site rainfall amounts are currently monitored by KCI.
• Frequency of sampling_and conditions.
• Each location will be sampled during baseflow conditions, which is defined as a period of
time required for storm impacts to subside (i.e. turbidity); based on past experience, it
requires 24 - 48 hours after the rainfall event depending on intensity of the storm.
- Professional judgment will be exercised here to make this call. Baseflow grab samples
- will be collected twice per month.
~ Storm samples will be collected at each location for every storm event that occurs, if
• possible. Logistical constraints and variability of many storm events make it difficult to
- collect storm samples. The goal of storm sampling is to collect samples during the rising
stage of the storm hydrograph. The intent is to estimate nutrient and sediment
concentrations (and loads) for each catchment during storm events that occur throughout
- the monitoring period. Storm samples will be collected manually (one grab sample) if
present during the storm event. Automatic battery powered sampling equipment will be
~ deployed to assist with storms that occur during off duty periods. Samplers will be
programmed to begin sampling after a stream rise of 6 inches collecting four grab
- samples in 15-minute increments for a time weighted composite sample of nine liters.
Upon retrieval, individual samples will be poured from the well-mixed nine-liter
composite sample, preserved and shipped to the lab for analysis.

~ Biological Survey
Biological assessment involves the collection and identification of benthic macroinvertebrates to
determine and evaluate community structure and diversity that result from water quality and
. habitat conditions. Benthic community composition with respect to species richness, abundance
and pollution intolerance integrates upstream water quality and in-stream habitat conditions.
- Benthic surveys will be conducted at the three locations described in Table 1 pre/post restoration.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
• Final ver2djw UTCC Monitoring Plan, July 2007
7

Biological monitoring (benthic communities and habitat) will be conducted according to
procedures described in the Biological Assessment Unit's (BAU) SOP (NCDWQ 2003). Details
of the protocol can be reviewed at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAU.html.
Stream Channel Assessments
Monitoring to establish baseline information related to indicators of hydrologic and habitat
functions may be conducted if EEP or its consultants are not planning to provide it. These may
include channel cross sections, qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze riffle and pool
substrates (pebble size), stream bank stability via bank erosion hazard index (BEHI), in-stream
habitats and riffle embeddedness within segments of each catchment.
Toxicity Bioassays
Water column and sediment toxicity testing may or may not be conducted. A fungicide
(mancozeb) is applied in catchment B in the fall for pumpkin production. It has low mobility
and due to its high adsorption capacity will tend to adsorb to sediment. It has a moderate to high
acute toxicity range for fish (Orme, 2006). Ethylenethiourea (ETU), mancozebs metabolite, is
not acutely toxic but is a concern in that is persists in the environment for 5 - 10 weeks and is
water-soluble. It is currently unknown whether existing land use practices will continue into the
foreseeable future. The decision to conduct toxicity testing will be finalized after the benthic
macroinvertebrate assessments are conducted.
Table 2. NCDWQ Laboratory Section -Water Methods and Practical Quantitation
Limits (PQL).
Parameter EPA Method' APHA Method2 Other Method pQI, Revision
Date
Susp. residue 160.2 2540D 2 mg/L 3/13/01
Susp. volatile residue 160.4 2 mg/L 3/13/01
Susp. fixed residue 160.4 2 mg/L 3/13/01
NH3 as N 350.1 and 350.2 QUIK CHEM 10-107- 0.01 mg/L 7/24/01
06-1-J
TKN as N 350.1 and 351.2 QUIK CHEM 10-107- 0.20 mg/L 7/24/01
06-2-H
NOZ+ N03 as N 353.2 QUIK CHEM 10-107- 0.01 mg/L 7/24/01
oa-1-c
P total as P 365.1 QUIK CHEM to-115- 0.02 mg/L 7/24/01
Ol-1-EF
Sulfate 375.4 5 mg/L 3/13/01
Chloride 325.3 5 mg/L 2/20/03
Potassium 200.7 0.10 mg/L 7/24/01
Calcium (Ca) 200.7 0.10 mg/L 3/13/01
Magnesium (Mg) 200.7 0.10 mg/L 3/13/01
L Information on EPA methods available at httn://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us./lab/ga/epamethods/epamethods.htm
2. APHA reference: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Final ver2djw UTCC Monitoring Plan, July 2007
8

References
Gessner M.O., Chauvet E., 2002. A case for using litter breakdown to assess functional stream
integrity. Ecological Applications 12(2) 498-510.
Hauer R.F, G.A. Lamberti, 2007. Methods in Stream Ecology, Second Edition, pg 585.
Academic Press, Burlington, MA.
Hill, A.R., 1996. Nitrate Removal in Stream Riparian Zones. J. Environ. Qual. 25:743-755.
Jones, J.R., B.P. Borofka, R.W. Bachmann, 1976. Factors Affecting Nutrient Loads in Some
Iowa Streams. Water Research Vol. 10, 117-122.
Meyer, J.L., Kaplan L.A., Newbold D., Strayer D.L., 2003. Where Rivers are Born: The
Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands. American Rivers and Sierra
Club.
NCDWQ. 2003. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Biological
Assessment Unit. Environmental Sciences Branch. July. Available on-line at
http://www.esb.enr. state.nc.us/BAU.html
NCDWQ. 2005. Guidance for Sample Submission. NCDWQ Laboratory Section. June.
Available on-line at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/lab/ga/sampsubguide.htm.
NCDWQ, 2007. Water Quality Monitoring Report for the Little River Local Watershed Plan.
February.
NCSU, 1995. The Nonpoint Source Manager's Guide to Water Quality and Land Treatment
Monitoring. Prepared by NCSU Water Quality Group under grant from USEPA.
NCSU-SRI website. Stream Restoration Institute regional curve information located at the
following webslte. htty://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/sri/regional.htm
NRCS, 2003. National Handbook of Water Quality Monitoring ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda.gov/
Orme S., S. Kegley, 2006. PAN Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network, North America
San Francisco, CA. h~:www.pesticideinfo.or~
Penrose, 2003. Ecological Functions of Restored Stream Systems: Benthic Macroinvertebrates.
Final report for EPA Wetland Program Development Grant.
Peterson, B.J., W.M. Wolheim, P.J. Mulholland, J.R. Webster, J.L. Meter, J.L. Tank, E. Mati,
W.B. Bowden, H.M. Valett, A.E. Hershey, W.H. McDowell, W.K. Dodds, S.K. Hamilton, S.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Final ver2djw UTCC Monitoring Plan, July 2007
9

Gregory, D.D. Morrall, 2001. Control of Nitrogen Export from Watersheds by Headwater
Streams. Science. Vol. 292, April.
r
r
Ryder, D.S., W. Miller. 2005. Setting goals and measuring success: linking patterns and
processes in stream restoration. Hydrobiologia 552:147-158.
Schilling, K.E., Spooner, J. 2006. Effects of Watershed-Scale Land Use Change on Stream
Nitrate Concentrations. J. Environ. Qual. 35:2132-2145.
Sweeny, W.S., T. L. Bott, J.K. Jackson, L.A. Kaplan, J.D. Newbold, L.J. Standley, W.C.
Hession, R.J. Horwitz, 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream
ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Vol. 101. No.
39. September.
USEPA, 1992. A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative Impact Assessment, A Proposed
Methodology. October. EPA/600/R-92/167.
USEPA, 2005a. National Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian
Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution. July. EPA-841-B-OS-003.
USEPA, 2005. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness:
A Review of Current Science and Regulations. EPA/600/R-05/118.
http://www.epa. gov/ada/download/reports/600R05 1 1 8/600R05118.pdf
Wenger, S., 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width extent and
vegetation. Office of Public Service and Outreach. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia.
WNAT 2003. Report from the Watershed Needs Assessment Team to the Mitigation
Coordination Group. Interagency workgroup that developed specific methodologies for
watershed assessments for NCEEP.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Final ver2djw UTCC Monitoring Plan, July 2007
10

~--~
r/]
. ~...~
.--a
~`
U
•s=

~ .O
. ,--~ r!~
~ _~
~ U
~ ~
~ w
,-~
U
. ,..,
O
bA
c~

•
•
•
•
•
•
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Projects
Version 1.4
Submitted: May 29, 2007
..-
Pro'ect Name: UT to Crab Creek Stream/Wetland Restoration Project
Coun Name: Alle han Coun
EEP Number N/A
Project S onsor: KCI Technolo ies, Inc
Project Contact Name: Aril Davis
Project Contact Address: 4601 Six Forks Rd., Suite 220, Ralei h, NC 27609
Project Contact E-mail: adavis kci.com
EEP Project Mana er: Ha Tsomides
Restoration of approximately 3,1971inear feet and enhancement of 2,853 linear feet of an Unnamed
Tributary to Crab Creek (UTCC) and its tributary (UT 1). In addition, there are approximately 16.7 acres
of wetland preservation opportunities, 12.4 acres of upland buffer, 11.5 acres of wetland bog restoration,
and 3.3 acres of bog preservation.
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
^ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

-. n ..
Coastal Zone Mana ement Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
®No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)? ^ No
®N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
^ No
®N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Yes
Management Program? ^ No
®N/A
Com rehensive Environmental Res onse Com ensation and Liabili Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? Yes
®No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever Yes
been designated as commercial or industrial? ^ No
® N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ^ No
®N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ^ No
®N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential ^ Yes
hazardous waste sites within the project area? ^ No
® N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? ^ Yes
^ No
® N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Yes
Historic Places in the ro'ect area? ®No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
SHPO has concurred that the project will not affect historic structures, however THPO ^ No
recommends an archaeological survey be conducted on the project site. ®N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? ^ Yes
® No
^ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Pro a Ac uisition Policies Act Unif orm Act
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? ^ Yes
®No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? ^ Yes
^ No
®N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? ^ Yes
^ No
®N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed: ^ Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; ^ No
and ®N/A
"what the fair market value is believed to be?
1 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

. ~
-. ~
American Indian Reli ious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of Yes
Cherokee Indians? ^ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
I have contacted the EBCI (Tyler Howe) several times and still have not received a response letter. ^ No
Still waiting for concurrence from EBCI ^ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Yes
Places? ^ No
® N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
^ No
® N/A
Anti uities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
® No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects Yes
of antiquity? ^ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
^ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
^ No
® N/A
Archaeolo ical Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
®No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? ^Yes
^ No
® N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
^ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? ^Yes
^ No
®N/A
Endan ered S ecies Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical ®Yes
Habitat listed for the count ? ^ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
Southern Appalachian bag wetland habitat is present on the site. No designated critical habitat is ^ No
present on the site according to USFWS Critical Habitat Portal. ^ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical ®Yes
Habitat? ^ No
^ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely ^Yes
modify" Designated Critical Habitat? ®No
^ N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
2 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

USFWS has not responded to my letter in request to review the project site. No
®N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a `jeopardy" determination? Yes
^ No
®N/A
Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory" Yes
b the EBCI? ^ No
Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites maybe impacted by the proposed
2 Yes
.
project? The EBCI has not responded to my letter in request to review the project site. Still ^ No
waiting on concurrence from EBCI. ®N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian Yes
sacred sites? ^ No
®N/A
Farmland Protection Polic Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
^ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally Yes
important farmland? ®No
^ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
^ No
^ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any ®Yes
water bod ? ^ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
^ No
^ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, Yes
outdoor recreation? ®No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
^ No
®N/A
Ma nuson-Stevens Fisher Conservation and Mana ement Act Essential Fish Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
®No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
^ No
® N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the Yes
project on EFH? ^ No
®N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
^ No
®N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
^ No
®N/A
Mi rator Bird Trea Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? ^Yes
®No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been inco orated? Yes
3 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

No
® N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
®No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining federal Yes
agency? ^ No
®N/A

~ 4 Version 1.4, 8/18/05
i

.~
_~
Q ~
''~
~ ~
F-~I
w

HEC-RAS Results for UT1
River Reach River Sta Proposed Sta Profile Plan O Total Min Ch EI W.S. Elev Elevation Rise Top Width
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft)
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 2250.391 100+45 2-YR PROPOSED 74 2616.58 2618.3 0.41 50.71
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 2250.391 100+45 2-YR Exist 74 2616.77 2617.89 28.29
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 2250.391 100+45 25-YR PROPOSED 276 2616.58 2619.04 0.15 79.74
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 2250.391 100+45 25-YR Exist 276 2616.77 2618.89 66.27
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 2250.391 100+45 100-YR PROPOSED 439 2616.58 2619.37 0.06 81.79
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 2250.391 100+45 100-YR Exist 439 2616.77 2619.31 75.21

UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1976.391 103+65 2-YR PROPOSED 74 2608.03 2610.73 0.35 12.77
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1976.391 103+65 2-YR Exist 74 2608.28 2610.38 11.9
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1976.391 103+65 25-YR PROPOSED 276 2608.03 2611.95 0.02 50.41
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1976.391 103+65 25-YR Exist 276 2608.28 2611.93 95.2
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1976.391 103+65 100-YR PROPOSED 439 2608.03 2612.63 0.22 86.56
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1976.391 103+65 100-YR Exist 439 2608.28 2612.41 117.3

UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1477.351 108+57 2-YR PROPOSED 86 2597.91 2599.83 0.65 12.51
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1477.351 108+57 2-YR Exist 86 2597.53 2599.18 9.15
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1477.351 108+57 25-YR PROPOSED 314 2597.91 2601.15 0.04 42.59
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1477.351 108+57 25-YR Exist 314 2597.53 2601.11 12.57
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1477.351 108+57 100-YR PROPOSED 498 2597.91 2601.7 51.95
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1477.351 108+57 100-YR Exist 498 2597.53 2602.69 83.67

UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1187.119 2-YR PROPOSED 86 2590.02 2592.22 33.65
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1187.119 2-YR Exist 86 2590.02 2592.54 18.75
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1187.119 25-YR PROPOSED 314 2590.02 2593.42 60.59
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1187.119 25-YR Exist 314 2590.02 2594.01 70.67
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1187.119 100-YR PROPOSED 498 2590.02 2594.07 71.82
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 1187.119 100-YR Exist 498 2590.02 2594.52 82.85

UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 814.582 2-YR PROPOSED 86 2582.21 2584.65 11.32
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 814.582 2-YR Exist 86 2583.26 2584.82 14.41
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 814.582 25-YR PROPOSED 314 2582.21 2586.25 19.69
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 814.582 25-YR Exist 314 2583.26 2586.48 50.62
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 814.582 100-YR PROPOSED 498 2582.21 2587.08 23.86
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 814.582 100-YR Exist 498 2583.26 2587.15 62.94

UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 0.016 123+70 2-YR PROPOSED 86 2566.75 2568.59 1.23 39.29
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 0.016 123+70 2-YR Exist 86 2565.54 2567.3 20.6
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 0.016 123+70 25-YR PROPOSED 314 2566.75 2570.07 0.91 112.82
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 0.016 123+70 25-YR Exist 314 2565.54 2568.82 36.64
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 0.016 123+70 100-YR PROPOSED 498 2566.75 2570.83 0.78 225.36
UTCC Trib 1 Trib 1 0.016 123+70 100-YR Exist 498 2565.54 2569.58 62.11

HEC-RAS Results for UTCC
River Reach River Sta ro osed Statio Profile Plan O Total Min Ch EI W.S. Elev Elevation Rise To Width
cfs ft ft ft
CrabCreek UTCC U er 4011.013 10+60 2-YR PROPOSED 192 2568.62 2572.93 0.68 64.43
CrabCreek UTCC U er 4011.013 10+60 2-YR Exist 192 2569.83 2572.25 14.83
CrabCreek UTCC U per 4011.013 25-YR PROPOSED 658 2568.62 2574.23 182.53
CrabCreek UTCC U er 4011.013 25-YR Exist 658 2569.83 2574.66 198.69
CrabCreek UTCC U er 4011.013 100-YR PROPOSED 1019 2568.62 2574.83 226.47
CrabCreek UTCC U er 4011.013 100-YR Exist 1019 2569.83 2575.18 227.36

CrabCreek UTCC U er 3805.204 2-YR PROPOSED 192 2565.71 2568.62 25.91
CrabCreek UTCC U er 3805.204 2-YR Exist 192 2566.37 2569 25.73
CrabCreek UTCC U er 3805.204 25-YR PROPOSED 658 2565.71 2570.32 126.16
CrabCreek UTCC U er 3805.204 25-YR Exist 658 2566.37 2570.71 58.49
CrabCreek UTCC U er 3805.204 100-YR PROPOSED 1019 2565.71 2570.86 141.59
CrabCreek UTCC U er 3805.204 100-YR Exist 1019 2566.37 2571.64 164.54

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3651.849 14+g7 2-YR PROPOSED 233 2565.51 2568.46 0.8 114.96
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3651.849 14+87 2-YR Exist 233 2563.78 2567.66 22.81
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3651.849 14+g7 25-YR PROPOSED 786 2565.51 2569.74 0.65 213.93
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3651.849 14+87 25-YR Exist 786 2563.78 2569.09 70.84
CrabCreek UTCC_Lower 3651.849 100-YR PROPOSED 1212 2565.51 2570.39 309.74
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3651.849 100-YR Exist 1212 2563.78 2570.62 313.7

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3311 2-YR PROPOSED 233 2565.11 2567.65 0.06 65.52
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3311 2-YR Exist 233 2563.67 2567.59 23.67
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3311 25-YR PROPOSED 786 2565.11 2569.26 255.01
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3311 25-YR Exist 786 2563.67 2569.3 259.03
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3311 100-YR PROPOSED 1212 2565.11 2569.75 344.12
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3311 100-YR Exist 1212 2563.67 2569.87 350.45

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3172.717 2-YR PROPOSED 233 2563.93 2566.29 54.44
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3172.717 2-YR Exist 233 2563.83 2566.53 46.65
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3172.717 25-YR PROPOSED 786 2563.93 2567.87 230.26
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3172.717 25-YR Exist 786 2563.83 2568.45 377.2
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3172.717 100-YR PROPOSED 1212 2563.93 2568.83 410.54
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3172.717 100-YR Exist 1212 2563.83 2569.17 427.22

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3039.657 2-YR PROPOSED 233 2560.26 2564.19 58.94
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3039.657 2-YR Exist 233 2561.12 2564.67 25.57
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3039.657 25-YR PROPOSED 786 2560.26 2565.43 91.38
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3039.657 25-YR Exist 786 2561.12 2567.18 238.93
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3039.657 100-YR PROPOSED 1212 2560.26 2566.43 159.23
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 3039.657 100-YR Exist 1212 2561.12 2567.65 258.49

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2819.94 21+40 2-YR PROPOSED 233 2559.4 2561.76 0.16 57.38
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2819.94 21+40 2-YR Exist 233 2559.41 2561.6 16.1
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2819.94 25-YR PROPOSED 786 2559.4 2565 183.27
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2819.94 25-YR Exist 786 2559.41 2565.31 221.99
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2819.94 100-YR PROPOSED 1212 2559.4 2566 271.55
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2819.94 100-YR Exist 1212 2559.41 2566.16 282.83

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2565 2-YR PROPOSED 233 2557.62 2560.95 60.37
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2565 2-YR Exist 233 2556.34 2561.56 32.04
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2565 25-YR PROPOSED 786 2557.62 2564.91 153.29
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2565 25-YR Exist 786 2556.34 2565.31 178.89
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2565 100-YR PROPOSED 1212 2557.62 2565.84 286.44
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2565 100-YR Exist 1212 2556.34 2566.04 319.21

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2548 Culvert

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2534.314 2-YR PROPOSED 240 2557.15 2560.09 57.35
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2534.314 2-YR Exist 240 2556.34 2560.49 28.02
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2534.314 25-YR PROPOSED 807 2557.15 2561.29 64.53
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2534.314 25-YR Exist 807 2556.34 2562.99 76.48
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2534.314 100-YR PROPOSED 1243 2557.15 2561.93 68.36
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2534.314 100-YR Exist 1243 2556.34 2563.67 97.5

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2432.459 2-YR PROPOSED 240 2556.72 2559.14 60.84
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2432.459 2-YR Exist 240 2556.25 2559.96 24.78
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2432.459 25-YR PROPOSED 807 2556.72 2560.64 98.03
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2432.459 25-YR Exist 807 2556.25 2561.42 69.88
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2432.459 100-YR PROPOSED 1243 2556.72 2561.31 105.41
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2432.459 100-YR Exist 1243 2556.25 2562.88 196.41

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2287.743 2-YR PROPOSED 240 2554.15 2557.08 74.31
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2287.743 2-YR Exist 240 2556.44 2559.3 120.73
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2287.743 25-YR PROPOSED 807 2554.15 2558.67 111.16
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2287.743 25-YR Exist 807 2556.44 2560.56 315.58
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2287.743 100-YR PROPOSED 1243 2554.15 2559.68 256.31
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 2287.743 100-YR Exist 1243 2556.44 2561.04 324.95

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1988.554 2-YR PROPOSED 240 2551.32 2555.25 64.51
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1988.554 2-YR Exist 240 2553.77 2556.68 45.84
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1988.554 25-YR PROPOSED 807 2551.32 2557.22 230.64
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1988.554 25-YR Exist 807 2553.77 2558.01 282.36
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1988.554 100-YR PROPOSED 1243 2551.32 2557.39 259.04
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1988.554 100-YR Exist 1243 2553.77 2558.48 291.05

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1787.145 2-YR PROPOSED 240 2551.02 2553.57 83.64
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1787.145 2-YR Exist 240 2552.09 2554.44 104.16
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1787.145 25-YR PROPOSED 807 2551.02 2554.47 185.79
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1787.145 25-YR Exist 807 2552.09 2555.4 197.08
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1787.145 100-YR PROPOSED 1243 2551.02 2555.39 260.43
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1787.145 100-YR Exist 1243 2552.09 2556.12 274.88

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1501.529 2-YR PROPOSED 251 2548.68 2551.33 16.75
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1501.529 2-YR Exist 251 2548.68 2551.33 16.75
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1501.529 25-YR PROPOSED 840 2548.68 2553.23 198.46
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1501.529 25-YR Exist 840 2548.68 2553.23 198.46
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1501.529 100-YR PROPOSED 1292 2548.68 2553.71 203.99
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1501.529 100-YR Exist 1292 2548.68 2553.71 203.99

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1069.826 2-YR PROPOSED 251 2544.37 2547.78 81.11
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1069.826 2-YR Exist 251 2544.37 2547.78 81.11
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1069.826 25-YR PROPOSED 840 2544.37 2549.4 291.5
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1069.826 25-YR Exist 840 2544.37 2549.4 291.5
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1069.826 100-YR PROPOSED 1292 2544.37 2550.13 327.8
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 1069.826 100-YR Exist 1292 2544.37 2550.13 327.8

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 770.938 2-YR PROPOSED 251 2543.17 2545.15 24.79
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 770.938 2-YR Exist 251 2543.17 2545.15 24.79
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 770.938 25-YR PROPOSED 840 2543.17 2547.18 211.27
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 770.938 25-YR Exist 840 2543.17 2547.18 211.27
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 770.938 100-YR PROPOSED 1292 2543.17 2547.65 257.41
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 770.938 100-YR Exist 1292 2543.17 2547.65 257.41

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 663.874 2-YR PROPOSED 251 2541.35 2544.03 31.42
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 663.874 2-YR Exist 251 2541.35 2544.03 31.42
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 663.874 25-YR PROPOSED 840 2541.35 2546.45 152.54
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 663.874 25-YR Exist 840 2541.35 2546.45 152.54
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 663.874 100-YR PROPOSED 1292 2541.35 2547.15 204.07
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 663.874 100-YR Exist 1292 2541.35 2547.15 204.07

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 373.16 2-YR PROPOSED 251 2539.75 2542.47 21.89
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 373.16 2-YR Exist 251 2539.75 2542.47 21.89
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 373.16 25-YR PROPOSED 840 2539.75 2544.35 141.73
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 373.16 25-YR Exist 840 2539.75 2544.35 141.73
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 373.16 100-YR PROPOSED 1292 2539.75 2545.32 211.6
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 373.16 100-YR Exist 1292 2539.75 2545.32 211.6

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 255.833 2-YR PROPOSED 267 2538.28 2540.91 28.83
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 255.833 2-YR Exist 267 2538.28 2540.91 28.83
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 255.833 25-YR PROPOSED 889 2538.28 2543.18 163.57
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 255.833 25-YR Exist 889 2538.28 2543.18 163.57
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 255.833 100-YR PROPOSED 1365 2538.28 2544.06 230.59
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 255.833 100-YR Exist 1365 2538.28 2544.06 230.59

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 205 2-YR PROPOSED 267 2536.21 2538.85 34.22
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 205 2-YR Exist 267 2536.21 2538.85 34.23
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 205 25-YR PROPOSED 889 2536.21 2541.07 236.95
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 205 25-YR Exist 889 2536.21 2541.07 236.94
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 205 100-YR PROPOSED 1365 2536.21 2541.92 251.79
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 205 100-YR Exist 1365 2536.21 2541.92 251.79

CrabCreek UTCC Lower 0 2-YR PROPOSED 267 2534.12 2536.9 20.29
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 0 2-YR Exist 267 2534.12 2536.9 20.29
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 0 25-YR PROPOSED 889 2534.12 2539 98.58
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 0 25-YR Exist 889 2534.12 2539 98.58
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 0 100-YR PROPOSED 1365 2534.12 2540.11 154.01
CrabCreek UTCC Lower 0 100-YR Exist 1365 2534.12 2540.11 154.01

River STA
1477
.~
~~
:t~ .~
.eM;asaw -~ ~;
„.~"
~` `/
River
~~
>' .~,,!~
River STA ~! 1.
~r STA 771
~ ,,
'~. River STA~~ "~"' ~y ~""'~" ~, ~/ 1502 ~' , ,. r -
~ w- °, ~ River STA
,~ 0 ~ ~.~ _ ~ ~ 664 River $TA~ .r r °~
~ ~~r `- ~~'' 1' ~ ~ 1070 ~' .: ~s
Mw 'u t ~* ,
' kRiver STA ~ y
-256 ~ y ~` m ~~
u ,
~c r fi s~~ B~ ~'`.
«'"fir ~,~ ~ •'* ~ ~ r~ `w ~ ~`• ~.
r
~ HEC-RAS Model at the Crab Creek Site
Project Boundary ®Existing Wetland
HEC-RAS Cross-Sections (UT I) Ditches
-= HEC-RAS Cross-Sections (UTCC)
.`~
sra

,.~ „
~,
,t e
•t
~
rw~ ~

~ ,,k;@
~. ~ ~ . ~+,~~ ~~~,u
~~
fiver STA
D11
,I'. ~ River ST.
STA ,~ 3805
' `
~
i
ii
River S
River STA r
~ (
3652
3311 ~
'

a'- ~&'
3TA r

w River 9
T ~ e.
^ !e
~,~
~~ Project Streams
Other Streams ~~ E
~~~ Other Streams (Intermittent) I :6,000
ASSOCIATES ~~ ~~ Diffuse Channel 1 inch equals 500 feet
500 250 0 500
hnago s~,~.~~. .au~~n~~a c"~~„~n cis unn<~~"",«h"~~,!un; Feet
r~
F~eos~!ste~ ~ ~
r~ ~{tt en
PROGRF>"'

•••••••••i••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

~.
~.
y
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~.
0
0

Existing Photos Crab Creek (UT1)
All pictures were taken December 12, 2006.
Photo O1: Start of project reach looking downstream.
Photo 02: Start of project reach looking downstream.
Photo 03: Looking downstream at debris jam.
Photo 04, O5, 06, 07: Looking downstream.
Photo 08: Old rusty car located on the right bank.
Photo 09: Wagon wheel located on the right bank.
Photo 10: Looking downstream.
Photo 11: Culvert in use for a crossing.
Photo 12: Looking downstream at UT 1 where the stream exits the property briefly.
Existing Photos Crab Creek (Upstream UTCC)
Photo O1: Looking downstream at the project start of the upstream portion of UTCC.
Photo 02, 03, 04: Looking downstream in the upstream section of UTCC.
Photo O5: Looking downstream at the culvert road crossing at the entrance of the property.
Photo 06: Looking downstream at the middle section of UTCC.
Photo 07: Looking upstream at the 3-way culvert pipe.
Photo 08, 09: Looking downstream where UTCC enters the forested area (downstream section of
UTCC) on the project site.
Existing Photos Crab Creek (Downstream UTCC)
Photo O1: Looking downstream at the downstream portion of UTCC when the stream enters the
forested area.
Photo 02-12: Looking downstream at the downstream portion of UTCC.
Photo 13: Looking at the project end for UTCC.

Existing Photos Crab Creek (Bog Preservation)
Photo O1: Looking east in the bog preservation area.
Photo 02: Looking southeast in the bog preservation area.
Photo 03: Looking southwest in the bog preservation area, toward NC-18.
Photo 04: Looking southwest in the bog preservation area, toward the utility line.
Photo O5: Looking northeast in the bog preservation area..

(_'i~b C'reek-UTl
PHOTO O1.JPG
PHOTO 03.JPG
PHOTO 02.JPG
FHOTO 04.JPG
~~ ~j
!
~
'~ s~,
'
~
S ~
~
~ ,
,~ y"'~ ~' '"~'

~ ~s y '
~ ~
w ~
~ 4 " k

f¢
~; ~~
y h~ulr~ ~
`~ vMo-..
~'
'
~1. •~ e
" ~
m
~ .«
~~y
I~Yly.~d
Sys °„

~ ~ s
, ...
~~pp ~~
s.

~~
c
~ ~ .... ..
~ ~lyN~ " `~~
D
'
.~« .
.
4 ~~ iy ~ ,
~yt
~ `,. .pax
i
~.l
~
~u v a _
.
,~. ~ 6s ..
~~~
~.
_ ~ Ay :~~" .. ~

...__......._ _~.
_. ~_._ _._~ r~
_..__ ~ __...__.___.:..._...e._~__. ri
PHOTO O3.JPG PHOTO 06.JFG

Crab Creek-UT1

f as

~~
~
v~
T ~
~, I ~~
~

~
fl~
l
..
I; i ~
'!i!o ffF~~~"

y ~ k
w

~ ., I 1 1
T
~~FY
Y

°'
~.k Ay J~ ~n I E~b~
" M '~-
~! '' 8

y
a
IN ~ i>

~

m_ I
~
i .
r 9
I~~
.... t ~ •`~
y.4

PHOTO 09.JPG
PHOTO l O.JPG
PHOTO I I .JPG FHOTO 12.JFG
PHOTO 07.JPG PHOTO 08.JPG

.,
:.
6L
0
0
bl
r
r
w
H
d
~.1
a
.,
t~
w
.~
M
G
H
O
x
a

~~ ~ ~
k ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.
L.4~~. r~ h '~
Y _ ~ x u-~q ~ - q
Fp '~Y ;4 S~ ~ ~ ~ i
# d r ~ ak; ,e~i 4

e ~~x~;~%
...
~~
PHOTO 03.JPG
PHOTO 04.JPG
PHOTO OS.JPG PHOTO 06.JPG
PHOTO O1.JPG PHOTO 02.JPG

b
x
0
-~
0
0
~r
ro
4~
-o
x
0
a
0
V
~--~
ro
H
'v
x
0
-~
0
0
~.
-o
c:
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C'r~b Creek-II>oK-ustaeain-

i
: w
. }
~`
'~~

rt
,1
~ t
i { qG.. I~
r ~ ~ ~ t ,.
d~ .~
ro ~ ~ ~b' y~
t . ¢
a i
~ „~` X11 !!
°' ° t 7. ~p n
; ~ ~ ,a

'
Y~ ~ p,, f ~p ~~~ ~~ ~

9' . 7~ ~ / 5
.r r r
~I~
~
w~.1
~
~
y~
. ~
~ 1 y~
~

x r a M y -",
~~
4

ru.. w
u
w
FV a
.. xN 'I "' Ii.
PHOTO OI .JPG
PHOTO 03.JPG
PHOTO OS.JPG
PHOTO 02.JPG
PHOTO 04.JPG
PHOTO 06.JFG

PHOTO 07.JPG

9 _ ~
,,

C ~ L
~
~ ~~~~
_ e'

_
~.s ~ ~ __
~a
I
~
~
~ ~ 14~°F6~~ ~: .~ R ~
~
~ ~
~.
+ ~'
~ ~ A
h
_
„'': "-
a~~~ 'N = ~ ~. ~14x.~
V F` hF~ (~+
:
y .~
• ~• ~=

a
:~
~=r
~ .
r

~ { s-~
... 11t ~ ~
q'
~'

_ »,555 " ~
PHOTO 09.JPG
PHOTO 08.JPG

~~
c
1> ~.' ya5Y ~
/f
7
1 '
{
~ ~ pV
{
{
~
':.
t
~y
.~
.y ~
.ate ~°.V~-~",1

~ K
1 ~" _ . •

f ,
i
1~ ~~ d
~:... '
r..yr~' _ _'~ ., s
_.:~
y, ~,.
Tom- ` ' - ' ~"
N
-Y
~"'~'s ~::y , r

z•`->I
PHOTO l O.JPG
PHOTO 11.JPG PHOTO 12.JPG

Crab ('ieel~-iI>oKZisheain-
~,,~ ' ~ - Vi
~
a a.
~,:
..
_~

^~ '
~
,,
,~ k~

~.,
'

a .~
II f~ .
wM I ! ,_h
h' ~,
I~
~~..z ~F~~s , ''AA
~ 4 l lYW+LLI ~~. q
~
4 ~4~,~~iy u
~1W' `~y ~y`G~„ "
Yi '~9~ a.
F~ rt ~~ -{~
ik ` -
~
.
~~
VT("_'(_') Fxistat~ Photos alyhs
PHOTO 13.JPG

~o
x
0
a
0
U
0
r
w +~~
`,y
x
G
O
a
b
r~'~ ~.
,~ ~
. ~ I . ~-
~, -.~
~' i
~ w .~
a ~
~~
?.. E,
y,.
~„< ®.,^
r x "' z
~1 .~~ F'Fa.. ~ 4i
w p,
F ~~ ~ ~~
'~~
m
-:
~ µ9
s ,~
b
x
0
0
a
W
0
G~
b
x
O
-~
O
0
A
.b
b
x
c
-~
0
0
b
G~
x
O
O
N
`C
O
~.
~~
na
0
~~
",.
••••••••••••••••••~•••••~•••••••••••••i•••••

r,
r
a
i
~Or
W
bb
..
'~
v
w
~.
.~
O
"L~
r,
r
.+ ~--
~
d MM #
T*
n~
~
a
.
~ ~
~ ip
~ xi~~ ~
Ih~~
n
~ .
~
~...
~
~ ~

d
n

1"'
w _=
,fit sz,
{.

u ~ ~
~ .
,
~
ry~s~, ~,
"
{ ~
.
b
. `
,.. ~,
y=
~'
.. ~; ,
.f

A~, fi ..
~ ,
$~

~ ~

F I~
I H$ f§
t^
"
q
"
°L
"
3-~d ~ ~
y
_
5g
I
_ ~
ZJ`
P.
h
O
F
O
x
a
•1ilrtiil~it~~l~~i~~l~~ratii~tt~~l~!l~~~a~~~

r
Appendix F
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms

^~
/~.~
e-f-
~'~!
CD
A~
i--+
C~
~•
O
O
3

•
•
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Crab Creek (Existing Wetland 2)
River Basin: New River County: Alleghany Evaluator: BH, KK
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: Signature:
Dale: January 11, 2007 USGSQUAD: Cumberland Knob Longitude: Location/Directions:
'i`Please Note: If evaluator and landowner agree Thal the feature Is a nran-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if itt
the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a mananade ditch and not a modified natural strewn-tltis rating system
should nol be used'`
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic}

9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 ~ 2 3
{ *NOTE• /f Bed & Bonk Caused By Ditclrine And R'ITAOUT' Simrosity 77rer: Score=d*1
1p) Is A 2°'~ Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Man And/Or In Field3 Present? Yes = 3 No l
Primary Georno-pltology Indicator Points:_4
II. Hvdroloey _ Absent Weak Moderate Strom
I} Is There A Groundwater ~~----^^~~
Flow/Discharse Fresent~ 0 1 2 ~3l
Primary Hydrology Ltdicator Points: 3_
~ Primary Biology Indicator Points: 9_

$eeondary Field Indicators: (Circle Orre Number Per Line)
Weak
3} Daes Topography Indicate A
Natwal Drainage WaY? D .5 ~ 1.5
Secondary Geomorphology htdicator Points: 2.5,~
II Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter ~
4) Is Water In Channel And >4$ Hrs. Since 0 .5 1
- Last Known Rain? *NOTE: I Aitrh Indicated /rr'R'9 Ahore Ski 77ris Ste And d5 Below*
5} Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
i Conditions Or In Growin Season ?
• 6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)~ Yes = ~) No = 0
Secondary Hydrology Indicator Points: 3.5_
Primary Field Indicators: {Circle One Nrember Per Line)
I. Geomor ltolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1} Is There A Riffle-Pool 5eguence~ 0 1 2 3
21 Ts The iTSDA Texture In Streambed

TQTAL PAINTS {Primary + Secondary) _ _19.25, (If > Y9 points the stream is at least intermittent}
O:iFormslStreum Evaluotion Forms~IVCDWQ Stream Eval Form
8) Are Wetland Ptants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostl FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: !f Tora! Absence 4jA11 Plants hi streandied 2 1 .~$ .5 0 ~
As Noted Aboi~e Skip 77~rs Step UNLESS 5AV Present*).
Secondary Biology Indicator Poi~tts: 2.25_

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Crab Creek (Existing Wetland 3}
River Basin: New River County: Alleghany Evaluator: BH, KK
DWQ Froject Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: Signature:
Date: January 11, 2007 USGSQUAD: Cumberland Knob Longitude: Location/Directions:
`Please Note: IJevaluator and landorvner agree that the feature is a marranade ditch, then use of this forfrr is not necessary. Also, if irr
the best professimraf judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a nrarr-made ditclt aad not a nrodifred natural stream-this rating system
should not be used''
Primary Field Indicators: {Circle One Nnmher Per Line)
- I. Geomo hvlo Absent
71 To 'f'{,nro A A;fflo_Pnnl Cwnnanrt•9 n7

7\ T~ T'he TTCTtiA Tnvhma Tn StrP~mharl
. 4) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 U ' ~
(*NOT~ lfBed & Ban1 Caasert HyDirchin And SVITADC7T Sinuosity 7ken Score-0*}
- 10) Is A ?~d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Man Attd/Or In Fieldl Presents Yes - 3 No ~~ l
Primary Geomorphology Indicator Points: 4
II Hydrolo~y Absent Weak Moderate StronE
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Presents 0 1 ? 3
~ Primary Hydrology Indicator Points: `I-
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Nwrlber Per Line)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1 S
Conditions Or In Growin Season ?
Are Hvdric Soiis Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)~ Yes - 1 S No = 0
Secondary Hydrology Indicator Points: 3.5_
II Hydrvlo~y Absent Weak Moderate Strone ____
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter ~
4} Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .S V 1.5
S} Is There An Active (Or Relic)
.--~ _ ..
Primary Biology Indicator Points: Z_
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainaee Wavy 0 ~S') 1 1.5
Secondary Geomorphology Indicator Points: _I_

8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAS Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Totat Absence Of AI! Plants hr Streambrd 2 1 .75 .5 D 0
As Noted Above Skip Tlris Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
Secondary Biology Indicator Points:_ 75_
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) ~ I2.25
(If >_ 19 poi--ts the stream is at least intermittent}
0:11~ormslStrenm Evnluntion FormsWCDWQ Strenm Evnl corm

•
•
i
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Crab Creek (Existing Wetland 7)
River Basin: New River County: Alleghany Evaluator: BH, KK
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: Signatwe:
Date: January 11, 2007 USGSQUAD: Cumberland Knob Longitude: LocationlDuections:
~~Please Note: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a marr•ntade ditch, then use of this fornr is not necessary. Also, if in
the best professional jtrdgement of the evaluator, [lie feature is a rnarr-made ditch acrd not a modified natural stream-this rating system
slrotrld riot be rrsed'~`
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle OneNurrrberPerLine)
2) Is The USDA Textwe In Streambed
8 Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
10) Is A 2°" Order Or Greater Channel {As Indicated
On Topo Man And/Or In Field) Present? Yes = 3 No ~ U
Primary Geomorphology Indicator Points:_$_.
II. Hydrolo~V Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Present? 0 1 (~ 3
Pritnary Hydrology Indicator Points: Z_
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainaee Way? () .5 ~~ 1.5
Secondary Geomorphology Ltdicator Points:_I_„_ ,~
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0~ 1 1.5
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry
.5 1
1.5
__ _ -
6} Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut}? Yes I.5 No = 0
Secondary Hydrology Indicator Points: 3u
5) ls'1'here An Active (Ur Kelic)
Primary Biology Indicator Points: 3_
II. Hydrolo>=y Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's {Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 ~ .5 0

eak
4 Are c:ra risri Present'! 0 .S 1 1.5
5 Are Macro benthos Present? .5 1 1.5
6 Are Iron Oxidizini=_ Bacteria/Funeus Present? .5 l 1.5
7 Is Fiiamentaus Ali*.ae Present? .5 1 1.5
$} Are Wetland Plants In 3treambed? S Mostly OBL Mostly FACW MostI~FAC Mastly FACU Mastty UPL
{* NOTE: If Toral Absence OjAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 f .~ 1 D D
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS 5AV Present*}. ~/
Secondary Biology Indicator Poitits:_.5
TOTf~L pQINT,S (Primary + Secondary) _ _17.5^ {If >_ 19 points the stream is at least intermittent)
O:~Fora~sl5trenm Evaluation FormsUVGDWQ Strenm Evnl form

O
c~3
c~3
Q
O
.~
cc3
. r..,
4~
N
Q
'~
c~3
4J
. ,..,
O

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Crab Creek
Applicant /Owner:
Investigator: SFS Date• 12-16-06
County Alleehany
State• •

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X
(explain on reverse if needed) Community ID:
Transact ID:
Plot ID: DP#1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum 1 FAC 9.
2. Symplocarpus foetidus 3 OBL 10.
3. Unl~own Shrub 2 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (~•) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6 (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Humaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Descri~tlon:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Al 10YR4/2 1, lfgr
3-6 A2 lOYR 4/2 SYR 3/4 c2p 1, lfgr
6-10 A3 lOYR 4/2 sl, 1fQr
10-18 A4 lOYR 3/1 fsl, Ifs
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No _
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
M:/2005/20053743_EEP_Open End_DesignM_Crab Creek/Technical/Wetlands.DP#1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Crab Creek Date: 12-16-06
Applicant /Owner:
Investigator: SFS County Alle¢hany
State: • NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X luo
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes luo X
(explain on reverse if needed) Community ID:
Transact ID:
Plot ID: DP#2
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus strobus 1 FACU 9.
2. Polvstichum acrostichoides 3 FAC 10.
3. Lindera benzoin 2 FACW 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 66%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary indicators:
Other _ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (~•) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chandler Drainage Class: Well Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Dvstrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inchesi Horizon (Munsell Motst) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-8 Al lOYR 4/4 sl, lf~r
8-12 Bwl 7.SYR 4/6 sl, lfsbk
12-18 Bw2 7.SYR 4/6 scl, lmsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No X
M:/2005/20053743_EEP_Open End_Design/H_Crab Creeklrechnical/Wetlands.DP#2

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Crab Creek Date• 12-19-06
Applicant /Owner:
Investigator: SFS Connty• Alleehany
State:. NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X luo
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X
Is the area a potential problem areal Yes No X
(explain on reverse if needed) Community ID:
Transact ID:
Plot ID: DP#3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Saecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
1. Corms amomum 2 9.
FACW+ 10.
2. Symplocarpus foetidus 3 OBL 11.
3. Sphagnum 3 OBL 12.
4. Rosa multiflora 2 UPL 13.
5. Acer rubrum 2 FAC 14.
6. 15.
7. 16.
8.

Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (~•) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) x Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Humaquepts Confirm
Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-8 Al lOYR 3/2 SYR 4/4 c2p fsl
8-30 A2 lOYR 3/1 fsl
30 C~ lOYR 3/2 Gravelly Coarse sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soiis
Sulfdic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed On Locai Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soiis List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soiis Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
M:12005120053743_EEP_Open End_Design/H_Crab CreeklTechnicaUWetlands.DP#3

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Crab Creek
Applicant /Owner:
Investigator: SFS Date' 12-19-06
County Alle anv
State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X
(explain on reverse if needed) Community ID:
Transact ID:
Plot ID: DP#4
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Bustles Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Smilax spp. 4 9.
2. Magnolia acuminata 1 NI 10.
3. Ouercus coccinea 1 NI 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 0%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (~•) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chester Drainage Class: Moderately Well
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-4 A 7.SYR 4/4 sl, 1fQr
4-18 Btl 7.SYR 4/4 scl, lfsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
No X Is the Sampling Point
No X Within a Wetland? Yes_ No X
No X
M:/2005/20053743_EEP_Open End_Design/H_Crab CreeklTechnical/Wetlands.DP#4

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Crab Creek Date• 12-19-06
Applicant /Owner:
Investigator: SFS Connty: Alleehany
State• NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes luo X
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes luo X
(explain on reverse if needed) Community ID:
Transact ID:
Plot ID: DP#5
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Suedes Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Saecies Stratum Indicator
1. Alms serrulata 2 FACW+ 9.
2. Scirpus cyperinus 3 OBL 10.
3. Polvgonium sa~attatum 3 OBL 11.
4. Juncus effusus 3 FACW+ 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 72"
X No Recorded Data Available water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (~•) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Humaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-6 Al lOYR 4/2 loam
6-48 A2 l OYR 2/2 fsl
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in SurFace Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
M:/2005/20053743_EEP_Open End_DesignM_Crab Creekffechnical/Wetlands.DP#5

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Crab Creek Date: 12-19-06
Applicant /Owner:
Investigator: SFS Connty• Alleghany
State• • NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes luo X
(explain on reverse if needed) Community ID:
Transact ID:
Plot ID: DP#6
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Rosa multiflora 2 UPL 9.
2. Pinus strobus 2 FACU 10.
3._ Cratae~spp. 2 - - 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 0%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (~•) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in•) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 18 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chester Drainage Ciass: Moderately Weil
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic llapudults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-3 A lOYR 3/3 fsl, lfgr
3-9 E lOYR 3/4 sl. lfsbk
9-18 Btl lOYR 5/4 scl, 2fsbk
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyttc Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soiis Present? Yes
No X is the Sampling Point
No X Within a Wetland? Yes
No X
No X
Remarks:
M:/2005/20053743_EEP_Open End_DesignM_Crab CreeklTechnicaUWetlands.DP#6

•••••••••i•••••••••i•••••••••••i••••••••i•••

r~ ~
V ~
~ ~
N
~ •~
.~
w

i--+

~.
~.
0
~.
0

•!•••••••••••••••••••••!i••••i••••••••••••••
Area
w_
Station Elevation
0.0 2627.24
10.0 2626.33
19.3 2625.37
25.0 2623.75
29.7 2622.84
32.6 2622.11
36.2 2621.57
36.6 261 9.21
37.8 2617.14
38.5 2617.13
39.1 2617.13
41.5 2617.37
43.1 2617.24
47.5 2617.43
49.6 2617.48
51.6 2617.70
52.7 2618.10
53.8 2619.02
54.8 2619.88
57.4 2619.81
61.6 2619.29
64.6 2618.8
70.4 2618.84
74.5 2618.97
77.3 2618.58
B. Roberts, E. Solchik
SUb11l:>,Rl" DATA
Banktull Elevafion: 2618.30
Banktull Cross~ectional Area: 14.9
Banktull Width: 15.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 2619.5
Flood Prone Width: 18.2
Max De th at Bankfull: 1.2
Mean De th at Bankfull: 0.9
W / D Ratio: 16.7
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.2
Bank Hei ht Ratio: 2.4
Water Surface Slo a (ftltt): 0.021

y
~" ~
{ ~ i
~
. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ _
~ ~ ~~
~ ~~
..,
t t
a ; ~ v ~-
,~ `Z
~s
~ •v. tt~~'
"
~

~
,,
r
"~`~ ~`.

k
~
~ ~ _- ~ '4
New River Basin, UTl, XS - 1 RIFFLE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
i -•-XS - 1 RIFFLE - - - Bankfull - - - Flood Prone Area
2629
2627
y 2625
2623
0
.~ 2621
i
c~ 2619
2617
2615

River Basin: New
Watershed: UT I
XS ID XS-2POOL
Draina a Area (s mi): 0.53
Date: 4/24/2007
Field Crew: A. Davis, A. French, K. Kni ht, 13. Roberts, E. Solchik
10.8 2617.3E
20.0 2617.5C
25.2 2617.8E
27.5 2618.6E
30.1 2618.42
32.5 2617.1
35.0 2616.12
36.9 2615.71
38.7 2615.43
40.7 2615.21
42.0 2614.81
44.3 2617.76
46.4 2618.65
52.5 2619.20

61.3
2618.62 2624
I
71.5 2617.60
79.3 2617.53 2622
88.0 2617.50 ~,
5 2620
0
a 2618
m
W
2616
'~~ 2614
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2616.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 14.0
Bankfull Width: I I.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max De th at Bankfull: 2.1
Mean De th at Bankfull: 1.3
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Height Ratio: -
Water Surface Slope (fl/fil: 0.(121
New River Basin, UT1, XS - 2 POOL

k~' LL
a~„
'
#~ "
ti. i
~
~~~~ ~'

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Slalion (feet)
XS - 2 POOL - - -Bankfull
~__ -
70 80 90
,,:
! L~
}~- # Tr"~!. ~ ...
,,e a ~t<~
., ~
•~~~~i~~~~~r~~l~~~~ii~~f~~~~ti~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

•~~~~i~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New
UTl
XS-3POOL
Area
Field Crew: ~A. Davis, A. French, K. Knight, B. Roberts, E. Solchik ~
Station Elevation
5.3 2611.78
11.1 2611.81
15.5 2612.31
22.7 2611.79
28.5 2611.80
32.5 2611.79
35.7 2611.50
37.6 2610.69
41.2 2610.64
43.1 2610.32
44.9 2610.01
46.4 2608.57
48.0 2608.17
50.3 2608.09
51.1 2608.20
52.0 2608.45
52.9 2608.87
53.6 2609.29
54.3 2612.95
57.8 2613.82
62.3 2614.22
78.2 2615.13
85.6 2615.77
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2610.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 13.0
Bankfull Width: 8.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max De th at Bankfull: 1.9
Mean De th at Bankfull: 1.5
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Hei ht Ratio: -
Water Surface Slo a (tuft): 0.021
~,
r
~.
T.
^`G.t #R t
a ~.. ; ~~,
^t'~: &' 1~ ~ ~+a ,~ ,: v, ~ ~ ,
~ ~'
&~c ~ < r~
/, ,.
~~
New River Basin, UTl, XS-3 POOL
2619
2617
2615
0 2613
0 2611
o~
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85
Station (feet)
XS - 3 POOL ~ ~ Bankfull
2609
2607
2605

Area
I
- 4 RIFFLE
A. French, K.
Station Elevation
0.0 2610. ? i
6.7 2610.59
12.4 2610.49
18.7 2610.25
21.7 2610.13
25.8 2609.15
26.8 2608.37
27.2 2607.69
28.3 2607.18
292 2607.14
31.8 2607.20
33.6 2607.30
35.1 2607.50
35.6 2607.71
36.4 2608.16
37.4 2608.60
45.0 2609.59
47.7 2610.28
51.4 2610.54
56.6 2610.57
61.5 2610.70
SU~~M~1ARl' DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2608.90
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 15.7
Bankfull Width: 13.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 2610.7
Flood Prone Width: 44.0
Max De th at Bankfull: 1.8
Mean De th at Bankfull: 1.2
W / D Ratio: 1 1.7
Entrenchment Ratio: 3.2
Bank Hei ht Ratio: 1.7
Water Surface Slo a (ft/ft): 0.021
2615
2613
m
2611
r
c
0 2609
m
`w
2607
2605
0
~, ~ ~,y., ~, ~~ , ~,m .
,~
~~~ + ~ 3^
.~ M?
~,- _ ~ , v
New River Basin, UTl, XS - 4 RIFFLE
•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet) i
XS - 4 RIFFLE - - - Bankfull - - - Flood Prone Area

•••s~•i•••••~••s~-•i~~•••a•s••••~•••~••••••••
Solchik
Station Elevation
0.0 2607.96
11.1 2608.42
18.7 2608.73
24.2 2608.78
25.3 2608.47
26.3 2607.94
26.4 2606.24
27.8 2605.70
29.4 2605.96
31.4 2606.38
32.7 2606.82
33.9 2607.13
36.1 2607.52
40.6 2608.61
5~1' 2608.66
t,< ~ 2608.87
SUn1MARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2607.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 14.3
Bankfull Width: 11.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max De th at Bankfull: 2.2
Mean De th at Bankfull: 1.2
W / D Ratio• -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Hei ht Ratio: -
Water Surface Slo a (ft/ft): 0.021
,-~
~. ~~,~•.u_a
a -~. ~~
'_
New River Basin, UTI, XS - 5 POOL
2615
2613
2611
fi
O
~ 2609
N
w
2607

2605 1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
-XS - 5 POOL - - -Bankfull
70

Area
- 7 RIFFLE
B. Robots, E. Solchik
Station Elevation
0.0 2597.22
2.5 2597.00
6.1 2596.50
8.7 2596.51
13.1 2596.51
16.2 2597.00
18.7 2597.35
21.5 2597.03
23.7 2596.22
24.7 2595.88
25.3 2593.65
26.1 2593.75
26.6 2593.44
28.1 2593.47
28.7 2593.55
29.6 2593.54
30.6 2593.64
31.2 2594.65
32.3 2595.28
33.6 2595.63
35.4 2595.64
36.7 2595.64
39.0 2595.65
41.5 2595.90
45.0 2596.95
48.6 2597.44
55.7 2597.83
SUM~1A12Y DATA
Banktull Elevation: 2595.80
Banktull Cross-Sectional Area: 15.9
Banktull Width: 15.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 2598.2
Flood Prone Width: >55
Max De th at Banktull: 2.4
Mean De th at Banktull: LO
W / D Ratio: 15.7
Entrenchment Ratio: 3.5
Bank Hei ht Ratio: 1.0
Water Surface Slo a (ftlft): 0.021
New River Basin, UT1, XS - 7 RIFFLE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Statlon (feet)
• XS - 7 RIFFLE - - - Banktull - - - Flood Prone Area
2600
2598
v
`'~', 2596
0
0 2594
y
2592
2590

•••••••••••••s•~~•••••~•••••••~a••••••••••••
~
~~
River Basin:
Wat
h
d Ncw
UT1 ~
ers
e
:
XS ID
XS - 8 POOL ~
, ~_}
~~ -
~
~ ,

" "
~~
Y~
.~ ~~
Drains a Area (s mi): 0.53 ;
ti. - -~
Date: 4/24/2007 ~" ~ ~„ • ~~
i
Field Crew: A. Davis, A. French, K. Kni ht, B. Roberts, E. Solchik
`.y ,ro ~ ~4
t
+' '
' T rt,
.
~ ~ r
~`+t
y
~-- ~rilk

Station E
levation
2593
79 ~
# ~a-
- ~
~
,,'~'"~ _, `+~
/
0.0 .
;:lJ,v ., ~ _
~ ,
~
3.3 2593.50 ,p ~I .
5.0 2592.63 ~ ~~~
7.9 2592.56 -
14.2 2592.36 ~ -
17.0 2592.35
19.8 2591.95 • +'
21.8 2591.79 `_%x-~
~
~~ ~
23.5 2591.36 - -~--
°
-
24.1 2591.07 ~_
~
25.6 2590.86 ~•,~
'
26.2 2590.59
26.9 2590.26
27.8 2590.08 --
28.5 2589.89 New River Basin, UT1, XS - 8 POOL
29.3 2589.87
30.2 2589.79
31.4 2593.25 2598
33.6 2593.66
38.7 2593.46 I 2596
-
-- - -

_ -
42.7 2593.34 ~ -~
47.2 2593.18 j 2594
-
- ---
51.2 2593.11 I c
I ~
2592 - - - ' _~, , -. -. -_ T_~ ,,,, , ,,, ,,,~ „ _- _, „-

2590
2588
~ 0 l0 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
XS - 8 POOL - - -Bankfull
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2591.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 13.6
Bankfull Width: 11.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max De th at Bankfull: 2.2
Mean De th at Bankfull: 1.2
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Hei ht Ratio: -
Water Surface Slo a (ft/ft): 0.02]

Area
Solchik
Station Elevation
0.0 2589 ~~
4.8 2587. "~s'
10.1 2587.:'
14.9 2586 ' "'
16.3 2586
19.3 2586
19.8 2585. ~`
20? 2585
21.0 2584
22.5 2584. -'
23.9 2584
263 2584 "
27.5 2583
30.3 2584
~ S q.t

34.6 15tSti.4L
36.7 2586.63
39.3 2586.50
41.1 2586.53
d? U 75RR 1F
45.6 2586.63
50.6 2586.39
56.5 2586.53
SU~1~1;U2Y' DATA
Bankfull Elevation: '_585.35
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 14.1
Bankfull Width: 12.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation: ?586.7
Flood Prone Width: >40
Max De th at Bankfull: 1.4
Mean De th at Bankfull: 1.2
W / D Ratio: 10.6
Entrenchment Ratio: 3.3
Bank Hei ht Ratio: I . i
Water Surface Slo a (ft/ft): ~~ u' I
Vew River Basin, UTI, XS - 9 RIFFLE
--------------- -- --- --------
0 10 20 30 40
Statron (feet)
XS - 9 RIFFLE - Bankfull - _ - Flood Prone Area
2592
2590
y
2588
r
0
a 2586
y
y
2584
2582
50 60

~ffi
16.5 2574.66
22.3 2574.37
26.3 2574.06
28.0 2573.88
29.7 2571.33
31.0 2571.48
32.9 2571.69
34.8 2571.82
35.7 2571.98
37.2 2572.63
38.0 2573.11
38.5 2574.42
41.3 2574.61
47.2 2574.24
50.0 2574.41
52.5 2574.83
56.5 2576.52
60.4 2577.60
SUMDIARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2573.50
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 15.0
Bankfull Width: 9.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 2575.7
Flood Prone Width: >55
Max De th at Bankfull: 2.2
Mean De th at Bankfull: 1.5
W 1 D Ratio: 6.5
Entrenchment Ratio: 5.6
Bank Hei ht Ratio: 1.2
Water Surface Slo a (ft/ft): 0.01 K
- ~ p
_
.~~
~ ..
. ~.~ ~~

y"'~"~ mac`
~
{ ~ ~
~ ~~
-~~ v . , .
~ ..
„~-A ~~~ m j
~
~
r~~ ` arr ~ '.fix r
:'•,,
: ~~
~" ~.,.
New River Basin, UTl, XS - 10 RIFFLE

2580
2578
v
2576
e
0
0 2574
m
2572
2570
]0 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
• XS - 10 RIFFLE - - - Bankfull - - - Flood Prone Are

Area
Station Elevation
0.0 2571.35
7.3 2571.43
11.8 2571.40
14.4 2571.07
15.9 2571.18
16.7 2567.59
I8.8 2567.57
19.8 2567.87
21.7 2568.20
23.8 2568.48
24.7 2568.52
28.8 2570.21
33.6 2570.43
3Z6 2571.25
42.8 2571.42
1
A. Frcnch, K. Knight, B.
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2569.6
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 14.1
Bankfull Width: 10.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max De th at Bankfull: 2.0
Mean De th at Bankfull: 13
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Hei ht Ratio: -
Water Surface Slo c (ftlfp: u.ll l
>~
k% , r
t ~
q s~ ~ ..
h''~ .~~ E
~~ M ~ ~p~
i~ ~
~vl ~Tir~.:" C"
w~ i p~``Rdf..r~
~ ~y
:, - ~' A.
f r 9r..ti ~ c~a z
New River Basin, UTl, XS - 11 POOL
0 10 20
Station (feet)
t XS - 11 POOL - - -Bankfull
2575
2573
m
2571
r
0
2569
y
W
2567
2565
30
40

t/~
N
to'-'-+
O
a
.,._,
. r..,
w
/••••~•••S•~~•~~•~!•~••~•i•••~•tf•••••••••~i

Crab Creek UT1 (Profle 1)
2619 1 1 I .. t. _.~ 11_ I _I _.. f. _I_--T -1. -r-r-r-_ _~i ___7--_~-_ I -~._-r-__-- I-T~__L I I. I__ ~__-,_ _r.. _~___,-.-r-._.__1 _T_T-_
I I I ~ I ~ I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I
2618 ___ __ L _- Lt-_t- ~ -L ~_ L.. _i

2617-
I
-
___
-.__ I I

.. I I I
I I I I
I ! I
- I I I
I I I I 1 I
I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I
I !

~
2616 I
,.
I ~ 1 ~' i
I I I
' I I 1~ -, ~,
I I I I
I I I ._ I
I I I I-~
I I I
I 1 I
I I 1
I I I I--1-._:
I 1
~
-
w 2615 I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I
I I I I I
I I I
i I
I I
I I
I 1 I I
i I 1 I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I ~' I I 1
I I
_

ul I I I

I I I I I I

I 1 I I I

I I 1
I
I I
I ! I I I .I

I I I I

I I !

I''~°T I I I

I "~. I ! I I

I I 1 I I

1 I 1 I I 1

I I I I I I

I I I

2613 - I I I
I I I 1 I I
I I 1 I I 1
1 I I 1 I I
1 I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
_ I I I I ~~
I I ~
I I I
I 1 I I
I I I 1 I I
I I 1

2612 I I I
I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I
I I I I I
I I I~ I I
I I I I __
1 •..I.. ~ I I I I I I
I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Channel Distance (fry
' • ElevaGOn t WS
Elevation BM:
inc BS HI FS FS de th FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
notes distance station !1 TP bed water LB RB BKF azimuth bed water srt LF RB BKF WS
BRI _ 0.0 '!i',751 2617
945
PRO1_RI 5.8 5.8 ~ 'n17.51 .
PRO1 RI 4.7 10.5 ~ _ :~It17.38
PRO1_RI 5.0 15.6 .%It17.i7 2617.596
PRO1 RI 3.2 18.7 - '-;16.85
PRO1 RI 2.6 21.3 _ ~ _ ::I~S17.03 2617.505
PRO1 RI 7.0 28.3 _ :'317.15
PROt RI 4.8 33.1 _ -.5316.97
PRO1 RI 4.6 377 __~~ __ 'I;1F.87
PRO1 RI 5.7 43.4 _ -__ 2ti 16.92
PRO1 RI 5.2 48.6 2616.79 2617
128
PRO1 RI 2.7 51,4 _ _
_ 2616.68 .
PROI RI 6.8 58.2 2616.64 2616.918
PRO1 RI 6.3 64.4 _ _ 2616.67 2616.894
PROt RI 5.5 69.9 ' 2616.53
PROt RI 4.9 74.8 _ _ 2616.22 2616.526
PRO1_RI 3.0 77.8 - _
~ 2615.81
PRO1 ERI 6.2 84.0 2615.48 2615.614
PRO1 RU 3.5 67.6 _-__ 2614.78
PRO1 BPO 2.5 90.1 2675.37 2615.621
PRO1 PO 6.5 96.6 2614.31
PRO1 EPO 6.1 102.7 ~___ 2614.32 2615.618
PRO1 GL 7.5 110.3 ___ _ 261q 7g
PRO1 BRI 7.3 117.6 __ __ 2615.36 2615.656
PRO1 ERI 4.6 122.2 _ _ 2615.14
PRO1_PO 4.8 127.0 _ _ ~ 2674.35
PRO7_PO 3.2 130.2
- 2614.56
PRO1_TW 6.2 136.4 2614.94
PRO1 TW 3.7 140.1 2614.97
PRO1_B-DEBRIS 4.5 144.6 ~ 2614.77 2615.364
PRO1_DEBRIS=TW 5.9 150.5 _ _ 2614.29 2615.301
PRO1_E-DEBRIS 5.0 155.5 2612.90 2613
772
PRO1 BPO 2.8 158.3 2612
30 .
PRO1_EPO 4.7 162.9 _ _ .
2612.46
PRO1_GL 8.1 171.0 2613.14
PRO1 BRI 6.9 177.9 2613
41 2613
643
PRO1_RI 4.8 182.7 .
2613.02 .
PRO1_RI 4.4 187.1 _ _ _ 2612.97
PRO1 RI 5.0 192.1 2612
64 2613
024
PRO1_RI 9.7 201.7 .
2612.61 .
PRO1_RI 5.8 207.5 2612.23 2612
512
PRO1 RI 8.4 215.9 _ _ 2612
36 .
PRO1 _RI 11.0 226.8 _ _ _
~ .
7r,~ ~ ono 2612
474
PRO1_ERI=WS 8.0 234.8 -- - ~ -~ ~ ~ -- .
2612.085
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~i~~~~

2609.

608
5
i ,.. i L.
i i
_, - ..i - r- ,. , ~ ~
t Crab Creek UT1 (Profile 2)
i---r i i _._-i -
~-~-.. i _._.~.. _ i. ___.

1
i
..i i.".. ,,.
w i.,. ~. _.,.._- --r`°`
.
2608 ... +a' 1 ~ ' i i i ~ ---
~r~-- '-- r ___ -*-- -~---~ I ~i
~ 2607.5 -

~ 2607 -

> 2606.5 -
i i ~ l
~-. i ;

-i--'-- ~-- +
i i i i ~

F _~_
-~- ~
--' ~-- ~ i i-r;1--~- ~
i i i
-~--ti-~ i ~ ~

1--
i
-3 i _I.......__ -~-~~--
i i i
~_` i i --, -..
i
- ,
i i
a--~-_
i i i
a.- ~ _ i r-
i i r
I --~~---+
i i i
_

- ~ ~
i ~.
.-a._~

~

w 2606
i i i
~
i i i
~-.
i
i
~
--~ ~.._...__i._..
' ~._.
1-L-
~ ~ .. .
~ ... ~
~.._.~~ ~
Z......l.
i ~ ...Y,.
i

2605
5
i r
i i i
i i i - '
i i i
~
~

~ _
.
2605 i i
i i ~
~ i ~
i i i i
i i ~~
i i
, i i
i i i i i
i i
i i i
i i ~ ~ _.... i
i ~"~~ i •~ i
~ i i i
i i

2604
5 i i i i
i i i i ~ i i i
i ~ i i i i i
i i i i i ~- i
i i i i
i i i
i i i
i ~~ ~
i i i i i
i i i i
~ i i i t
i t ~ i
.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Channel Distance (ft)
• Elevation tWS 160 180 200 220 240
Elevation BM:
inc BS HI FS FS depth FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
notes distance station _ TP bed water LB RB BKF azimuth bed watersrf LF RB BKF WS
PRO2 BRUN 2608.308 2608.815
PRO2_RUN 5 5 2608.084
PRO2 BPO 3.0 2607.833 2608.876
PRO2_EPO 3 9 2608.016
PRO2 BRI 4.3 2608.472 2608.802
PRO2 ERI 9 8 _ _ 2608.332 2608.46
PRO2 BPO 6.1 2607.439 2608.358
PRO2 EPO 3.7 2607.543 2608.425
PRO2 BRI 7 3 __ 2608.09 2608.388
PRO2 RI 6 5 2608.027
PRO2 RI 7 8 2608.024
PRO2 RI 8 6 2607.822
PRO2 RI 12 0 __ 2607.783 2608.081
PRO2 RI 7 2 2607.319 2607.658
PRO2 RI 10 9 _ _ __ 2607.206
PRO2 RI 8 3
" 2607.211
PRO2_RI 13 8 ~ 2607.168 2607.418
PRO2 ERI 10 4 _ 2606.513 2606.931
PRO2 RUN 10 6 26D6.28 2606.867
PRO2 RUN 8 7 _ 2606.352 2606.862
PRO2 BPO 16.2 2605.805 2606.834
PRO2 PO 7 2 2604.931
PRO2 PO 10 4 ~ 2605.515
PRO2 PO 12 2 2605.272
PRO2 EPO 61 _
" 2606.285 2606.83
PRO2_TW 6 3 _
_" ~
' 2606.343
PRO2_TW 4 0 2606.164 2606.871
PRO2_BPO 2.6 2605.769 2606.858
PRO2 EPO 5.6 __ 2605.546 2606.867
PRO2 BR 7 4 _- 2606.625 2606.816
PRO2_RI
PRO2 ERI 9 1
11.2 ~ ~ _ HOC
`i1c% ~ 2606.249
2605.814 2606.53
2606.078

Crab Creek UT1 (Profile 3)
2597 --~---._I I i. /.. - -r_.--*---r. __. Tr-._~- I-~~r--- --- -r-~ --r -r--- ._ ___r---r.._.
! I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I -
2596 I I I I I I I
I 1 I I
I I I I
I I 1 I
I I I 1 I I
I 1 I I I
I I
2595 _
_
1 1 I 1 1 I
1 I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I 1
I I I I
I
.c 2594

25c72
" ~
I I I I I I I I I i
- L-. __.L___L__.L~~ I. __..• I . L.. _.. _-L_ I 1. I 1

I 1-- 1 I
I I
_ 1L~ I I

_-~L-.
~ i I I I I I '. I I I ~ I 1 I t
w 2592

2591
I I I I I I ~ I I I I
I I
__~- _~-__'t-- I 'I-_____-1_._.-... ; _ _.y...--
I 1
~
1-.
I 1 I ~
I

--}--~
I I I I I I 1 I ~ I 1 I I ~ I I I I I
2590 t
1 t I I I I 1 I I I ~
I I I
I
~ '
2589 -
0 50 100 150 200 250
Channel Distance (ft)
• ClevaUO~ +WS'
Elevation BM:
inc BS HI FS FS de th FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
notes distance station TP bed water LB RB BKF ~ azimuth bed water srf LF RB BKF WS
PROS BRI 0.0 - `+?5 54
- 2595.707
PRO3_RI 6 9 6 9 - - ."1 688
- 2595.06
PRO3 ERI 2.1 9.0 - - - '"11.545 2594.881
PRO3 TW 7.5 16.5 `11129
-- 2594.821
PRO3 TW 10.9 273 -- :~'~1224
- 2594.838
PRO3 TW 124 39.7 ''1.358 2594.811
PRO3 BRI 4.1 438 '`14.572 2594.803
PRO3 RI 5.3 49.1 _ 94.33 2594.69
PRO3 RI 5-3 54.3 S`+4.327 2594518
PRO3 RI 5.3 59 7 __ 2544.132 2594.439
PRO3 RI 9.9 69.6 2693.755 2594.135
PROS RI 3.0 72.6 ~ 2593 771 2594.069
PRO3 RI 6.7 79.3 _ _ `~"~; 398 2593.66
PRO3 ERI 9.5 _
88.8 '13908
-
~ 2593.213
PRO3 TW 8.7 _
975 '13 016
' 2593.254
PRO3 TW 4.1 _
101.6 ." ~~1251 2593.14
PRO3_TW 4.8 106.1 - -- - ''d269 2593.158
PRO3 TW 2.8 109.3 "~'+2 856 2593.083
PRO3 TW 0.8 110.0 rJ ~2 561
- 2592.850.
PRO3 TW 6-1 116.1 ''`2 081 2592.822
PRO3 TW 6.6 122.1 ~
' ':'4.146 2592.885
PRO3 BRI 2.2 124.9 ___ `='11_.393 2592.86
PRO3 RI 3.8 128.7 ~ _ 12.436 2592.815
PRO3 RI 6.1 134.8_ _ ":`.12.365 2592.592
PRO3 RI 5.2 140.0 4i `. `12066 2592348
PRO3_RI 5.9 1459 `x'!1.832 2592-16
PRO3_RI 12.2 1580 97461 2591.69
PRO3_RI 9.5 167 6 " 10.958 2591.227
PRO3 TW 5.5 1731 '~~"-0.656 2591.194
PRO3 RI 4.8 177 9 ~ 10.833 2591.164
PRO3 RI 8.5 186 3 :" '.10 687 2591-056
PRO3_RI 10.6 188.:: _ "1`10608 2590766
PRO3_ERI 6.6 195 1 ^r10 321 2590.794
PRO3 BPO 9.1 204.3 "~ 9 984 2590.752
PRO3 PO 4.5 208+1 199.704
PRO3_PO 5 9 214 5 .7 19 402
PRO3 EPO 3.2 21 7 R "~%19.443 2590.785
PRO3_TW 11 4 229 7 "~`i0 382 2590.781
PRO3_TW 3.9 233.1 _ 90495 2590.723
PRO3 TW 4 6 237 7 1'~a9.869 2590.703
PRO3_TW 3-6 241 4 '.10.186 2590.705
PRO3_TW 9-1 250 '1 ~ 110454 2590.703
PRO3 BRI 6.5 257 0 2!x'10.329 2590 545
PRO3_RI 7.7 _
264 / "".10.202 2590.368
PRO3 RI 9.9 274 fi [689.57 2589.789
••••••••~•••••••••i•••••••t!••••~•••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••i••••••••••••••••••••

2584.6
2564.4
~
__ i
~..__._
i --
___- __.~..~„_._
i Crab Creek UT1 (Profile 4)
... _._. ~.._._.-_..__._,~._.._ ., .-----.~~,
--- i --
'
...__,-__.-- --- -~-----~---~`--._.---'_._._
i i i
~
_~._._ -r--._=~
i
2584.2 ~._,
'~-~
2584 ',
:- .
' r _ ~
~ 2583.8 ~, -..:+/.
~ ~ ~
~ ~
, " . ,, i - ~ i i
0 2583.6 , ~ ~,._ - - i ~,~~
-.,.i,. - -
I - ~ i
2583.4
w
~~ ~
~~ ... _
~
~ i
2583.2

~

~

~

' ~
~ i
~
i
2583
i
i
~ , ~~
i, i
i
-
2582.8 i i i
I ~, i
~
2582.6
i
i
i
~
i ~ i i
i
2582.4
0
10 20

Elevation BM:
30
40 50 60 70 80
Channel Distance (ft)
~~ Elevation ~ WS
90 100
inc BS HI FS FS depth FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
notes
PRO4 ERI distance station TP bed water L8 RB BKF azimuth bed
2584.208 watersrf LF RB BKF WS
2584.435
PRO4_TW 4.6 2583.524 2584.368
PRO4 TW 4.7 ~ - 2583.712 2584.35
PRO4_BPO 3.3 ~,~ 2583.406
PRO4 EPO 2.9
" - 2583.267 2584.354
PRO4 TW 5.4 ~ 2583.796 2584.346
PRO4 TW 14 6 2583.57 2584.353
PRO4 BRI 8.5 "' 2584.134 2584.327
PRO4 RI 9.6 2583.943 2584.193
PRO4 RI 13.2 2583.807 2584.028
PRO4 RI 10 3 -' t,:< 2583.549 2583.81
PRO4 RI 8.3 2583.365 2583.555
PRO4 RI 6.2 2582.835 2583.171
PRO4 RI 7.9 ,~ 2582.654 2583.041

2574 ~~ ~

2573 5
I
~ ~
I
I.~. r I
~~~~~~ i
1
i _~
I
-r---r-
1 1 I I
' Crab Creek UT1 (Profile 6)
-r-
--
r- r--r--r---r -~°T-°r""~T--
I
---1-r--r--~-..

I
'
2573
I ' i
I
I I

I ~

~ f 1

- t I

I I I I ~ ~;

I I I I :

I I I I

I I I I I 1 I I~Ir-
I
I I I I I I ~ I I I 1 I

I I I I

_
~
C ~' ~ '

- I I I I
I 1 1
I I
I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I

1 I ~ I I I j I I I i

I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I

I I
'
2572 5 11 ~- .'
- -1-'- -
~ -... ` J-
~ I I I I 1-- _ I ~
_ i.__ 1 I I
~

N ',
w 2572
I '.
I I I
i ~ I I
I I I
i I
1 I I I I i I I ~ I I
I
I
i 1 I I 1 I I
i '~ 1 I 1 i I I .
I ~.
I 1 I
I I 1
I

2571
5 I I I
I I
I I I I I I '~
I I I I I
I I I I I i
I I '~
I I
r

I I I
I I
I
I I I
1 I I
I I I I
I I I
I I
1 I I I I I I I
I I I ~
I I I I I : I I
I I I
I I
.
I
I
2571 I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I 1 1 I I I
I I I 1 I I
I I
I I I ~
I I
I 1 I I I
I I I I
I I I i
I 1 I ~
1 I I
1 I I I I I
i ~ I I I 1
I I I I 1 I I I I
I 1 I
I I 1 1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Channel Distance (ft)
•- Elevation ~-WS 60 70 80 90
Elev ation BM: I 1
inc 8S HI FS FS depth FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV EL EV ELEV ELEV
notes distance station TP bed water LB RB BKF azimuth bed water srf LF R B BKF WS
PRO6 ERI 0.0 _ 2573.335 2573.527
PRO6 RU 2.1 2.1 _. 2572.894
PRO6 BPO 3.4 5.4 _ '~'r~'~ 2572268 2573.527
PRO6_PO 4.1 9.6 "~'
--
- 2572.591
PRO6 PO 3.3 12.9 .Ir
_ 2572.429
PRO6 EPO 2.3 15.2 __ 2572.595 2573.488
PRO6 BRI 4.9 20.0 _ _ 2573.281 2573.431
PRO6 RI 9.6 29.6 _ 2572.984 2573.1
PRO6 ERI=DEBRIS 4.7 34.3 2572.543 2572.692
PRO6 EDEBRIS 9.6 43.9 _ 2571.762
PRO6 TW 5.0 48.9 _ _ 2572.024
PRO6 BRI 2.6 51.5 ___ 2572.251 2572.624
PRO6 ERI 8.3 59.8 _ 2571.75 2571.971
PRO6 TW 4.9 64.7 __ 2571.189
PRO6 BRI 52 69.9 2571.778 2571.995
PRO6_ERI 15.4 85.3 _
rl~' 2571.439 2571.434

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i-~~~~~~~~~•

25685 ---
r- I
I I
2568
. _...
I
I
1
----'_°
-r-----
I I
I I

-t---~---'--
I
I
~ Crab Creek UT1 (Profile 7)
...'____
I-._._
r4-
",_-"----r--T~-t---r-
- r--r r r--
I I I
I I I I I I I I
-`-I----I----r I I

1 I I I
1 I I I I
---r---~--e---

I I I
I I I
~

.. _. __. 1-
2567
5 1. _.I _

_1 I

~ I I I

_ I
I I
1
1 1 I

:
I I I
~ ~
I I I I I I 1
I I I

-r- I
I
.
I
I I
2567 I
I ~
'. _
""
1 I I I
i I I
I I

I I I
I I I I I I !
i I '. I I i I
I t I I
~ I I I
I I ~
.
C
I I
~_ _
> _.__
~ 2566 5 ~ I
I I ~
__ I I I I
I I I 1 ~ I
I I 1 1
I
_ ~°^^°° I I
I 1 I I I I I I I
,... I I ~
1 I I I
I I I
--

I
_ 1
w
2566

I

;
I I
I

I I
L-L.-

I
I i I
I

I 1
I
-1-.

I -"•

I ._ ~ I

- 4 -

1~
, i
I

I I I
I I

2565
5 ~ I

I
1 I
I I 1
I I
I 1 1
I
I I I I I I I

I I
I 1
I
I I ~~ e
4`~--~
~
I I
I
I
I I I
I i I
.
I I I
2565 ~~ I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I 1 I i I I
I 1 I I I I I
I 1 I I I I I I
1 I I I I i i 1
1 I I
0 10 20 30 40
Channel Distance (ft)
• Elevation ~WS 50 60 70
Elevation BM:
inc BS HI FS FS depth FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV EL EV ELEV ELEV
notes distance station TP bed water LB RB BKF azimuth bed watersrf LF R B BKF WS
PRO7_BRI _ _ 2568.034 2568.196
PRO7_ERI 7.5 _ 2567.686 2567.862
PRO7 TW 2.7 __ 2567.453
PRO7_TW 3.8 _ 2567.327
PRO7 ERI 3.5 2567.505 2567.862
PRO7 RI 8.4 2566.668
PRO7 ERI 10 8 2566.445 2566.76
PRO7 TW 7.9 "''I- 2566.43
PRO7 BRI 5.3 2566.613 2566.719
PRO7 ERI 5.9 2566.26 2566.458
PRO7 TW 5.1 2565.585
PRO7 TWTR=TWMC 7.3 2565.536 2566.384

i i ii i~ ~i i~ i- -~ -~ -I 11 II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111•••••••••••••••i
a~
.,..,
a~

Riffle Surface
Material
Size Ran a (mm;
Count
silt/clay 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 7
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 5
very coarse sand 1 - 2 6
very fine gravel 2 - 4 4
fine gravel 4 - 6 5
fine gravel _ 6 - 8 8
medium gravel 8 - 11 5
medium gravel 11 - 16 3
coarse gravel 16 - 22 5
coarse gravel 22 - 32 5
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 9
ve coarse ravel 45 - 64 11
small cobble 64 - 90 4
medium cobble 90 - 128 7
large cobble 128 - 180 4
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256 5
small boulder 256 - 362 2
small boulder 362 - 512 2
medium boulder 512 - 1024 1
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096 2
total particle count:
bedrock -------------
clay hardpan -------------
detritus/wood -------------
artificial ------------- 100
total count:
Note: XS1-Riffle UT1 100
100%
90%
80%
C
t 70%
c 60%
~ 50%
U
n 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, ---
-~-cumulative % -# of particles I',
sans
r----1--------1-- , --
coooie
" 12
10
'
8 c
3
m

6 °
d

4 N
2
0
1000 10000
0.01 0.1
Size (mm
D16 1.6
D35 8
D50 26
D65 50
D84 130
D95 360
1 10 100
particle size (mm)
Size Distribution
mean 14.4
dispersion 10.6
skewness -0.19
Tvoe
silt/clay 0%
sand 18%
gravel 55%
cobble 20%
boulder 7%

--
Riffle Surface
Material
'. ~
Size Range (mm;

Count
silUclay 0 - 0.062 1
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125 3
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25 4
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 3
coarse sand 0.5 - 1
ve coarse sand 1 - 2
very fine gravel 2 - 4 1
fine gravel 4 - 6 3
fine gravel 6 - 8 1
medium gravel 8 - 11 8
medium gravel 11 - 16 5
coarse gravel 16 - 22 6
coarse gravel 22 - 32 4
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 11
very coarse gravel 45 - 64 15
small cobble 64 - 90 12
medium cobble 90 - 128 17
large cobble 128 - 180 5
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256 1
small boulder 256 - 362
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count:
bedrock ---------------------
clay hardpan ---------------------
detritus/wood ---------------------
artificial ---------------------
tota count:
Note: XS4- Riffle UT1
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, --
+cumulative % -# of particles
100% silUcla sand ravel cobble boulder 18
90% 16

c ---- ---
80% --- --- --------- -
14

I ~
70% I
I
12 ~
3

c 60% I ~
'_- I 10
~
° 50% ---- --- --- --- -------- I °
o
I 8 -
~,
°
a 40% I ?

30%
j
6 ~
ai
20% ~ 4
10% I
I 2
0% 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 8 3.4 mean 28.3 silUclay 1%
D35 22 12 dispersion 3.9 sand 10%
D50 45 17 skewness -0.19 gravel 54%
D65 64 20 cobble 35%
D84 100 29 boulder 0%
D95 140 39
Illllllllllilllllllllllllllllllll•••••••••••••••••••••••••••

~•••i•••••••~••••••••~••••••••••••••••••••••
_
'Riffle Sufiace
Material Size Ran a mm; Count
silt/clay 0 - 0.062 2
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5
coarse sand 0.5 - 1
ve coarse sand 1 - 2 1
very fine gravel 2 - 4 2
fine gravel 4 - 6 2
fine gravel 6 - 8 1
medium gravel 8 - 11 5
medium gravel 11 - 16 5
coarse gravel 16 - 22 4
coarse gravel 22 - 32 8
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 10
very coarse gravel 45 - 64 20
small cobble 64 - 90 18
medium cobble 90 - 128 16
large cobble 128 - 180 5
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256
small boulder 256 - 362 1
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count:
bedrock ---------------------
clay hardpan ---------------------
detritus/wood ---------------------
artificial ---------------------
tots count:
Note: XS7- Riffle UT1
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, ---
-+-cumulative % -# of particles
silt/cla sand gravel cobble boulder
25
100%
90%
80%
c
y
I
70%
~
~
c
w 60% m

50% o
~
n 40% n
30% N
20%
10%

0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 14 3.4 mean 37.4 silUclay 2%
D35 38 12 dispersion 2.9 sand 1%
D50 54 17 skewness -0.17 gravel 57%
D65 70 20 cobble 39%
D84 100 29 boulder 1
D95 140 39

---- --------- --------- - 20
I

L
15
--~- --------- --------- t
~ ~
I
10
l
1 ~
1
I
5
t
l I
0

Riffle Surface
Material
Size Range (mm; Count
silUclay 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25 1
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 7
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 5
very coarse sand 1 - 2 1
very fine gravel 2 - 4 2
fine gravel 4 - 6 2
fine gravel 6 - 8 2
medium gravel 8 - 11 5
medium gravel 11 - 16 7
coarse gravel 16 - 22 1
coarse gravel 22 - 32 3
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 5
ve coarse ravel 45 - 64 14
small cobble 64 - 90 15
medium cobble 90 - 128 12
large cobble 128 - 180 9
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256 3
small boulder 256 - 362 4
small boulder 362 - 512 1
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096 1
total particle count:
bedrock -------------
clay hardpan -------------
detritus/wood -------------
artificial ------------- 100
total count:
Note: XS9- Riffle UT1 100
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, -- -
~cumulative % -# of particles
100% silUclay sand gravel cobble boulder
16
90%
---- ------- -- -------
- 14
80% - -
1
12
I .c 70%
c 60% 10 3
.J
v 50% ---- ------- -- --------- 8 °
n 40% ~ ~
6
30% ~ N
~ 4
20% I
10% I
I 2

0% I
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 4 mean 23.7 silUclay 0%
D35 28 dispersion 8.3 sand 14%
D50 56 skewness -0.30 gravel 41
D65 80 cobble 39%
D84 140 boulder 6%
D95 280

i••••s••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
'~ Riffle Surface
Material
Size Range (mm;
Count
silVclay 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25 4
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 3
coarse sand 0.5 - 1
very coarse sand 1 - 2
very fine gravel 2 - 4 3
fine gravel 4 - 6 3
fine gravel 6 - 8 2
medium gravel 8 - 11 12
medium gravel 11 - 16 10
coarse gravel 16 - 22 21
coarse gravel 22 - 32 16
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 12
ve coarse ravel 45 - 64 9
small cobble 64 - 90 4
medium cobble 90 - 128 1
large cobble 128 - 180
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256
small boulder 256 - 362
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count:
bedrock -------------
clay hardpan -------------
detritus/wood -------------
artificial ------------- 100
total count:
Note: XS10- Riffle UT1 100
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, -- -
+cumulative % -# of particles
100% silVclay sand gravel cobble boulder
90%
80%
c
I £
70%
c
c 60% ~
m

a~i 50% o
U ~
d
a 40% n
m
30% y
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 8.2 mean 18.8 silVclay 0%
D35 15 dispersion 2.3 sand 7%
D50 19 skewness -0.01 gravel 88%
D65 26 cobble 5%
D84 43 boulder 0%
D95 64
25
~
I 20
l
I
I
I
15
---- -------- ---
~
I 10
I
L_
I
5
t
1

0

Smallest Sieve Weight Percent Stream:
Passed mm oz % Item Finer Than Watershed:
<1 134 37.6% 37.6% Location:
1.0 11.5 3.2% 40.9% Note:
2.0 9.5 2.7% 43.5%
4.0 14.0 3.9% 47.5% Bar Sample Sieve Analysis
8.0 28.0 7.9% 55.3%
16.0 41.5 11.7% 67.0%
31.5 117.5 33.0% 100.0% 100%
I Sands
I I I Gravels
I I I I AI7 I I I I Cobbles
I Boulders
I 1 Bedrock
I I
90%
128.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% -*-*--*
A

256
0
0
0
0
0%
100
0%
80% I I III11
~ I III
I I I
-
' I I iV I I I 1 I IIIIII I IIIIII
. . . . , ---
- -
r-•---' -,-~-- I
> 256.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% m °
70 / I I I ( I I I I I I I u I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total:

356.0

100% L

~ o

60%
I
I ~. I I I I
' ' ' ' '
I I I I 1 1
'
I I I V
' '
I I I
' '
I
I I ( I I I I
' ' '
I I ( I I I I
'
~
CO% I
I I i I I I I
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I~ 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I I ( I
I I '. I I I I
I I I I
I I I ( I I I I
1 I ( I I I I i I H i l l
I I ( I I I I

C J
40% I
I I I V I I I
I I ( I I I I I i I I i I
~ V I I I I I I I
I V I 1 I
I I I I
I I I ( I I I I
1 I ( I I I I ~ I I I 1 I I
I I ( I I I I
N
~

30%
I
I I I I
I I
I I I I 1 1

I
I I ( I
I I I
I
i ( I I I I
I ( I I I I
a
20% I I I ( I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I

10% I I ( I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I V I I I I I I I I 1 1

0% I '. V I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I ( I I I I I ( I I I I
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Cumulative Percent • Percent Item
Size er cent less than mm Percen t b substrate t pe
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silUcla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
5.0 5.0 5.0 22.7 28.4 0% 44% 56% 0% --- ---
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••i••••••••••

I ,r
Smallest Sieve Weight Percent Stream:
Passed mm oz % Item Finer Than Watershed: .,
<1 22 5.4% 5.4% Location: %~ .
1.0 17.0 4.2% 9.5% Note: -'.r
2.0 14.0 3.4% 13.0%
4.0 19.0 4.6% 17.6% Bulk Sam
le Sieve Anal
sis
8.0 43.0 10.5% 28.1 p
y
16.0 59.6 14.6% 42.7%
31.5 234.4 57.3% 100.0% 100% Sands Gravels Cobbles Boulders Bedrock
128
0 0
0 0
0% 100
0% gO% I - I I I I I I I II I I I I I
. . . .
256.0 0.0 O.O% 100.0% 8O% I ~ V I I I ~ Iii I I I I I I V I I I
~ i I I V I I I
~ V I I I

> 256.0
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
r
70%
I
I i I I I l I i I lel I I
J_ ~ I I I I I I
I I t ( I I I I I I i l l l

Total:
409.0
100%
~
iJO%
~
I i i t II ~ ~ I I ! I` I l i
I I I Irz I I I 1 I I V
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I ~ I! I I
I ~~ I i ~ I I I I i l l l
I I I I I i

SO% I
I I V I I I
i V I I I I I ~ 16 I I I
I I I: ! I I I I I V
I I
I I I I I
I 1 1 I
I I I I I I I
I I V I I I ~~ I I I I i~l
I ( I I I I
LL
C
4O% I
I I V I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I j I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I l l l
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i '. I ( I I I I
I I V I I I
~
3O% I
I I I I I I I
I. ( I I I I I I I ~I I I I
I I I I I I I I i '~ I
I I V I I I
I I I I
I I I V I I I i,
I I I i l l ~ I I V I I I
I V I I I
IZ
20% I ~ V I I I ' i I I I I I I I ( I I I I I - ~ V I I I '. I I I I

10% I I I I I I I ~. _ ~ I. I I I
` I I I I I I I I I ~ , i '~, I I i I I I V I I I
I
0% I I I I I ~ I I~ I I I I I I III I ~ ~ '. V I I I , V I I I
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) __
Cumulative Percent • Percent Item
Size per cent less than mm Percen t b substrate e
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
3.1 11.1 17.4 26.1 29.7 0% 13% 87% 0% --- ---

Smallest Sieve Weight Percent Stream:
Passed mm oz % Item Finer Than Watershed:
<1 52 12.6% 12.6% Location:
1.0 28.5 6.9% 19.5% Note:
2.0 22.5 5.5% 25.0%
a.o 20.o a.9% 2s.s% Bulk Sample Sieve Analysis
8.0 37.0 9.0% 38.8%
16.0 66.5 16.1 % 55.0%
31.5 185.5 45.0% 100.0% 100%
I Sands
I I I Gravels
I I I I I I I I Cobbles
I Boulders
I I Bedrock
I I
128.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 90%
I -~-~-r-
I I I I I I I
I I I Ibl I I
I I I I I
I I I
I
I I I I I I I
i I I I I I I
256
0 0
0 0
0% 100
0% +
. . . . 80% ~
> 256
0 0
0 O
O% 100
0% ~ °
7 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I L, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I I V I I I
.

Total: .

412.0 .

100% .
L
~ 0 /o
I
'
I I 1 1 1 1 1
'
'
I I I I~ I I I
N'
I I I V
I I I
' "
I
L
I I V I I I
' ' ' ' '
I I V I I I
'
N
l so% I
I -
I I V I I I
I I V I I I i. I I I~ I I I
I I I `(` I I I I I I V
I I I V I I I
I I I I
I I I V I I I
I I V I I I I I V I I I
I I V I I I
L
C 50% - I
I I I I I I I I
I I i. I I I I I I I;:I~I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I V I I I
I I I I
I I I I I' I I
I I V I I I I I I I I I I
I I V I I I
N
~ 40% -

30% I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I :. I I I I
~ Iy`I I I I I I I V
I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I
I V I I I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I
°>
d I I I IIIiI .~~. IIII I I I V I I I I I I ( I I I I I I ( I I I I
20%
I
I I( I I I I
~ ~ ~ I I I
I I I ( I
I I I
I
I V I I I
I ( I I I I
10%
I
0% _.
0.1
I I V I I I .. I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I V I I I
----_J. ~ ~~._~
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
I Cumulative Percent • Percent Item I'
Size per cent less tha n mm Percent b substrate t e
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silUcla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
6.0 6.0 12.9 24.8 29.2 0% 25% 75% 0% --- ---
'~••••••••••••••••i•i•••••••••••••••••••••••••

Smallest Sieve Weight Percent Stream:
Passed mm oz % Item Finer Than Watershed:
<1 14.5 4.8% 4.8% Location:
1.0 5.5 1.8% 6.7% Note:
2.0 21.0 7.0% 13.7%
4.0 10.5 3.5% 17.2% Bulk Sample Sieve Analysis
8.0 25.0 8.3% 25.5%
16.0 46.5 15.5% 41.1%
1
0 100% S
ds Gravels Cobbles Boulders Bedrock
31.5 176.5 58.9% 00.
% an
I I 11 I I Ia 1 1 11 1 I '. 1 I I
128.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 90% -r--~~+{--
I I I I I I `:+-*-r
I I i I w i t I I ~ 11
1 1 1
I ~--~--1-
I V I I I --I--r-r-~~y~-,
I I I I I 1
0
0 0%
0 100
0% ~
„ ~-+ +,. ~~~
256.0 . . . 80% _ ~T T
1 I I I I I
u III I I I I IIII I t d i l l
> 256
0 0
0 0
0% 100
0% m ° ~ I I IIII , I
1 t
.

TOtal: .

299
5 .

100% . r

~ 70 /o
I I I I I I I I
I I I I III
I I I I i. I I I I I I 1 1
I I I I~I I I
1 1 1
I I
1
I
I I 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I
I 1 V I I I
_I 1 1 1 11
. N

C 60% I I I V I I I

I I 1 V I I I I I" I I I I I V
I
I I F~ I l l i 7 I I I I I I

I I I 1

I I 1 I I I I

I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1

I I I i l l l
LL
C SO% - I I I I I I I
I I I I I I ~ I I [ I I I I I I I ' I
~ I ~- I I I I I I I t I I I
l l l I
I I I I I I I
I I I V I I I ~ V I I I
I I I I I I I
N
~ 40%
~ I I I~ I I I I
I I I '. I '~. I I '. I ', I l t ',, I ~ I ~ i
'' '. I -1 I l i 'I 1 I 1 1
~ l i l
1 1 1 I
I I I I I I l j
I I ~ I I I I, '. ~ I I I I'
'~ I I I I I
a 30% I ~ I I I '~ 11 ~ i l l l I I I i l l l l I I I I I I 1 1 I I I ~~ I
20%

°
I ~ I h i l l
I ~I I I I _ 1 1

~
1 1 1
I
I V I I I
i I I I I I I'.
10 /o
I I l i l ~.
~ I I I I I I f I I
1
w
I I I
I
I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I
0% I
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Cumulative Percent w Percent Item
Size ercent less than mm Percen t b substrate t e
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
3.2 12.2 17.7 26.2 29.7 0% 14% 86% 0% --- ---

of I
Smallest Sieve Weight Percent Stream:
Passed mm oz % Item Finer Than Watershed:
<1 42 9.0% 9.0% Location: °~-~"
1.0 16.5 3.6% 12.6% Note: =' .-:~;`
2.0 13.5 2.9% 15.5%
4.0 14.5 3.1% 18.6% Bulk Sam
le Sieve Anal
sis
8.0 97.0 20.9% 39.5% p
y
16.0 62.0 13.3% 52.9%

31.5
219.0
47.1 %
100.0% 0
100 /o

(
Sands
I
Gravels
Cobbles
Boulders
Bedrock

128
0
0
0
0
0%
100
0%
90% 1 1
-
- I 11~ I I I I
- I i I I I
. . . . r~
I
I7 ~ ~
-r-+
~ ,-r r -- -~

256
0
0
0
0
0%
100
0%
80% I r i V I I I I I V I I I I I I I I I I
+
+ I I ~.. I I I I
~
+ I I V I I I
.
> 256.0 .
0.0 .
O.O% .
100.0%
~
°
70 /
I
I I I I I I I I
I I I i;' I I I
I I I V -
I I I
I +-
-+-+.
I I I l l l l
~~~~
L --.-
i
1
I I V I I I

Total:

464.5
o
100 /0 L
~ o

60%
I
~ I ( I I I I
I I
-

-__ e
I I I ly I I I
I I I V
I I
I I I
I
I _
I I I I III
, I_I__LL _
I I ( I I I I
N
i
50 % I
I I I ( I I I I
I V I I I I I I I 1 1
I I I I I I I I I ( I
I I I V I I I
I I I I
I I I ( I I I I
I I ( I I I I I V I I I
~ I V I I I
i
C
40% I
I I i l l l l
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I ~ I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I i l
I 1 1 I
I I I ( I I I I
I I ( I I I I I I V I I I
I I I I I 1 1
U
30% I
i i I I 11 I
I I V I I I 1 I I I i l
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
111 ~ I
I I I ( I I I I
I I ( I I I I I I I I
~ i l l l l l

20% i I V I I I I I'I I I I I I I I V I I I I I I V I I I ~ I V I I I

10% I I I V I I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I I I V I I I V I I I

0% 1 I I V I I I ( I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I i I I I I I I V I I I
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
I *° Cumulative Percent • Percent Item
Size er cent less than mm Percent b substrate t e
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
2.2 6.9 13.8 25.0 29.3 0% 16% 84% 0% --- ---
•••••ii•••••••••••••i••••••i•••••••••••••••i

--~
W
••i••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: UT1 (Crab Creek Site) Reach: Date: 4/24/07 Crew: AH
Bank Height (ft): Bank Height/ Root Depth/ Root Bank Angle Surface
Bankfull Height (ft): Bankfull Ht Bank Height Density % (Degrees) Protection%
Value Range
------------ --- 1.0 1.1
-------------------- 0.9 1.0
----------------- 80
100 20
0
0_0 80 100

VERY LOW Index Range
-- -------------
1.0 1.9
-------------------- ---
1.0 1.9
-------------------- -------
--
------
1.0 1.9
-------------- --
_
--
-------
1.0 1.9 --------------
1.0 ------
1.9

Choice
V: I:
V: I: -----
V: I: --------------------
V: I: --------------
V: 100.0 I: ------
1.0
Value Range
---------------- 1.11 1.19
-------------------- 0.5 ------ 0.89
------- 55 79 21.0 60.0 55 79

_
LOW Index Range
----------------
2.0 3.9
-------------------- --
2.0 3.9
-------------------- -------------------
2.0 3.9
------------------- --
------------
2.0 3.9
-------------- --------------
2.0 ------
3.9

Choice
V: I:
V: 0.80 I: 2.4
V: 75.0 I: 2.3 ------
V: I: --------------
V: I: ------
+d„ Value Range
----°------°-- 1.2 1.5
--- 0.3 0.49 30 54 61.0 80.0 30 54
p
d
MODERATE Index Range
---------------- ---------°°--°
4.0 5.9
-------------------- °-----°-----°----
4.0 5.9
-------------------- -------------°----
4.0 5.9
-- ---°-°---°----°
4.0 5.9 ----°°------
4.0 ----°
5.9

=
O
Choice
V: 1.3 I: 4.6
V: I: -----------------
V: I: -------------------
V: 75.0 I: 5.4 --------------
V: I: ------
~ Value Range
-- ------------- 1.6 2.0
-------------------- 0.15 0.29
----------------- 15 29 81.0 90.0 15 29

lL
HIGH Index Range
-- -------------
6.0 7.9
-------------------- ---
6.0 7.9
-------------------- -------------------
6.0 7.9
---------------- -------------------
6.0 7.9 --------------
6.0 ------
7.9

Y
c
Choice
V: I:
V: I: ---
V: I: -------------------
V: I: --------------
V: I: ------
~
m Value Range
---- ----------- 2.1 2.8
-------------------- 0.05 0.14
-------------- 5 14 91.0 119.0 10 14

VERY HIGH Index Range
-- --
----
8.0 9.0
-
---------
------ ------
8.0 9.0
-
---------
------- -------------------
8.0 9.0
--------
- -------------------
8.0 9.0 --------------
8.0 ------
9.0
Choice ~
~: ~
~ ~:
~
------ ~---------~------- ~----------~: ------
Value Range -
------------ -- --------->2.8-------- --------`-005 -
- ----- ~5 119
' `
10

EXTREME Index Range
-- -------------

10
--------------------

10
--------------------
-------------------
10
--------------- --------
-
------
-
10 --------_
_
-
-
10
------

Choice
V: I:
V: I: ----
V: 1: -------------------
V: I: ---------------
V: I: -----
V = value, I =index SUB-TOTAL (Sum one index from each column) 15.8

Bank Material Description: Bank Sketch
Gravel and Sand Layers
Bank Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
BANK MATERIAL ADJUSTMEN 5

Stratification Comments:
Stratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMEN 5

VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5-9.9 10-19.9 20-29.9 30-39.9 40-45.9 46-50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTA 25.$
BEHI RATING Moderate

~•••••••i•t••~••••••••~•••~••••~••••••••••••!,
n

••~••••~•••••••!•i•••t••••••••~••••••••••••~
0
.~
U
N
O
bA
.~
.~
w

•~•••~i••••~•••••••••i••~•!~••!•••~•••••••••
Area
Station Elevation
0.0 2574.39
7.2 2574.20
14.0 2574.67
19.6 2574.93
24.9 2574.93
30.4 2573.81
32.3 2573.28
34.8 2572.79
36.4 2571.75
37.2 2571.47
38.3 2571.06
39.8 2570.66
41.1 2570.28
43.0 2570.14
44.4 2569.78
45.8 2569.79
47.5 2570.08
48.5 2570.35
49.7 2570.47
50.2 2573.29
52.0 2574.12
54.5 2574.26
63.6 2574.25
71.3 2574..52
79.7 2574 ?5
New
UTCC-US
XS-12 PC
1.65
Solchik
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfall Elevation: 2572.8
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 33.3
Bankfull Width: 15.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max De th at Bankfull: 3.0
Mean De th at Bankfull: 2.2
W / D Ratio• -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Hei ht Ratio: -
Water Surface Slo a (ft/ft): 0.009
2579
2577
v
2575
0
~~
~~
New River Basin, UTCC-US, XS - 12 POOL
a 2573
m
2571
2569
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
~XS - 12 POOL - - -Bankfull

River Basin: Ncw
Watershed: UTCC-US
XS ID XS - 13 RIFFLE „~
Drama eArea s mi): L65 '°` ~ ~ -~ ~' ~'~i
r
Date: 4n Si 2()07 , ~ ~ 'fin-0~ ~ ~~~~t ~ ~ ~, "'
Field Crew: A. Davis, A. French, K. Kni ht, B. Roberts, E. Solchik
1` r_ RI I
Station Elevation ^'" ~' ~
0.0 2574.14 ,~ " r ~ ~ m t ~`
4.5 2574.35 ; -~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~" + rora;y'~
113 2574.46 , , ~ „xa
18.1 2574.47 ~~ ~'
` ,~.,.
22.4 2574.55 `~"a ~ ~-
25.4 2574.25 R .~:,, ~ ~wi+~° - :.. ~ 5
t ~ ,> ~~
8.I 2573.42 -~- '~` ~" ~ -
30.3 2573.04 ~_ ~ t ~ ' ~~ -
31.4 2572.14 ~',~,: ~t ~ ~~~~ , ~'
32.4 2571.37 'Y~ Asr ~~ r+ ~~ mow' ~`
33.1 2570.53 '+':.` ;e~~"' ~`'''wr•
t
34.4 2570.51
35.6 2570.56
--
38.4 2570.21 ~~~ New River Basin, UTCC-US, XS - 13 RIFFLE
39.5 2570.33
40.5 2570.33
41.9 2570.37 2580
42.8 2571.37
43.9 2572.28 2578
45.0 2572.66 ;,
47.5 2572.97 `/ 2576 _ _ ~ _ . --~. _ _ _ _ _ _ .
50.4 2573.49 0
53.7 2573.59 ~ 2574
57.7 2574.32 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
64.1 2574.32 2572
2570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
XS - 13 RIFFLE - - - Bankfull - - - Flood Prone Area
SUV1~71R1 DA11
Bankfull Elevation: 2573.04
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 30.8
Bankfull Width: 17.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 2575.9
Flood Prone Width: ?65
Max De th at Bankfull: 2.8
Mean De th at Bankfull: 1.8
W ! D Ratio: 10.0
Entrenchment Ratio: >3.7
Bank Hei ht Ratio: I .U
Water Sarface Slo a (ft/ft): U-fi(i<~
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•
Area
Station Elevation
0.0 2568.30
6.7 2568.19
14.2 2568.?_6
20.2 2568.01
23.3 2567.38
25.5 2566 ?2
27.7 2566.14
29.3 2565 65
30.2 2565.0.
31.0 2564.,
32.5 2564-29
34.3 2564 ' 9
35.7 256422
37.5 25642'.
39.7 2564.'20
41.7 2564.' 0
43.4 2564.43
45.0 2565.'8
46.0 2566.43
47.8 2567.03
52.1 2566.93
58.2 2568.10
64.1 2568.83
71.2 2568.87
- 14 RIFFLE
i/2007
)avis, A. Frcnch, K. Knight, B. Roberts, E. Solchik
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2566.50
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 34.2
Bankfull Width: 19.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 2568.9
Flood Prone Width: 65.0
Max De th at Bankfull: 2.4
Mean De th at Bankfull: 1.7
W / D Ratio: 1 1.6
Entrenchment Ratio: 3.3
Bank Hei ht Ratio: 1.2
Water Surface Slo a (ft/ft): 0.009
132
' ;~.

y ~..
~, ~
~
i~ '.,
~ "~

~
~
~ ,
~
'~ -
~'a. '• ~
,~ ~ ~t6
-
~ ~ ..
~ ~,.5
~ rt ~ ,t. , ~ 3~a. ~~».'..
~
~ d
~""
'
M1 ° ~- z
"'
Y
~
~
s
s a ~*t~ ~~~
_.. _I
,..~
"` ~ E
New River Basin, UTCC-US, XS - 14 RIFFLE
2
72
5

2570 I

o - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _
2
68
5
0
2566
a
v
`
W
2564

2
62
.
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
~XS - 14 RIFFLE - - - Bankfull - - - Flood Prone Area

River Basin: Ncw
. r
I , li

t
~
Watershed: UTCC-US ~ ~ ilk ` ~
~~ ~~ ~~`' Id
XS ID XS - IS POOL
Draina a Area (s mi): 2.12 ~ ~ x
Date: 4/25/2007
~
~~
l .
I
~ ~~
Field Crew: A. Davis, A. Frcnch, K. Knight, B. Roberts, E. Solchik ~ ..a., -~ ~
~
~" - h
nyl
~ a '' ~
~
~ ~~~
Station Elevation ~
"
0.0 2566.25 i'~~
~ ~ ~~'`.
~~ ~ ~
~~"
6.5 2566.35 ~
w
13.6 2566.48

E
~
h'I
`
19.4 2566.63 P'~s~, t
7 '
I ~ ill''
I„ I
22.7 2566.65
~ ~
'.~
` ~~ I

!
24.5 2566.23 buy ;
~^ = ~
III
~
..5.0 2562.86
-
,
~
~L.~~,; ~;~ •;.
~
I
.

25.1
2562.14 ..
~
~~
~
~~ °` ~
~~

26.8
2561.57 :
~ ~ ~, F ~~.
., ~ ~
28.2 2561.34 ~~ ~
';n
'
' ~ .~.,r,
-li E$'' ~~
30.0 2561.65 f
~,
;, .,
., _ •,
31.6 2562.01
34.0 2562.85
35.1 2563.66
37.2 2564.68 New River Basin, UTCC-US, X S - IS POOL
39.1 2565.34
41.4 2565.48
44.9 2565.42 2570
48.6 2565.17
53.0 2565.94 2568
57.5 2566.40
y
`~ 2566
2564
v
W
I 2562
2560

0 10
i
20 30
40
50 60
~ Station (feet)
--~-XS - 15 POOL - - - Bankfull
tiU~IMARI~ DA'PA
Bankfull Elevation: 2564.7
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 28.2
Bankfull Width: 12.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max De th at Bankfull: 3.3
Mean De th at Bankfull: 2.3
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Hei ht Ratio: -
Water Surl'acc Slo r (f~/ft): i „',<I

I~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•
Station Elevation
0.0 2565.22
6.6 2564.34
16.4 2562.83
25.2 2562.64
32.9 2561.57
34.2 2560.98
35.3 2560.07
36.9 2559.44
39.5 2558.31
40.2 2557.99
40.5 2556.88
41.5 2556.73
43.0 2556.52
46.1 2556.59
48.4 2557.02
50.0 2557.09
50.5 2557.70
51.7 2558.08
54.3 2558.36
56.8 2558.80
60.7 2559.05
64.0 2559.48
68.6 2559.63
73.0 2559.31
76.5 2559.80
80.0 2559.60
84.7 2559.72
88. ] 2559.80
93.3 2559.78
96.1 2560.59
100.8 2560.79

.6 ,~ e ~ ~ t"" ~°~tw - ~
~'" , y`~~ ~
' ~' ~~
~ ~ , ;. ~~~ , ~ - a~ - '~"
~ ~
~„r "'
~ ~, ~' ~ ,~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~+ ~ ~ '
~ ~ ~ ~ & '~`
:~ '" ~. '
t ~'~ *. ~ ;. s
2569
2567
~ 2565
0 2563
0 2561
~,
~ 2559
2557
2555
I 0
I
2560.63

River Basin:
Ncw
~ . --

.a ~.
Watershed: U7"CC-US ~
~~%'Vp~ ~ + ~ . ~""
~ ~
'~
~
XS ID XS - 16 RIFFLE ' ~
wn,7,Pa -«, ~
~~~" . ~~
Drains a Area (s mi): 2.42 ir, ~ ~ ~ti ~..
Date: 4/26/2007 ..
Field Crew: A. Davis, A. French, K. Kni ht, B. Roberts, F,. Solchik ,: A,,~,
~~.~"~`1` ~h

i r E ~ ~u,

» Si
~

•~

- ,x ~,. ,

SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2559.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 33.4
Bankfull Width: 24.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 2561.9
Flood Prone Width: >75
Maz De th at Bankfull: 2.7
Mean De th at Bankfull: 1.4
W / D Ratio: 17.9
Entrenchment Ratio: 3. ]
Bank Hei ht Ratio: 1.0
Water Surface Slo a (tt/ft): 0.009
New River Basin, UTCC-US, XS - 16 RIFFLE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11
Station (feet)
-XS - 16 RIFFLE - - -Bankfull

River Basin:
Ncw ~h I r7~,:
i
Watershed: UTCC'-US - ~ ^~} +
' yta. 4.
XS ID XS - 17 POOL .. _,_ t~
Draina a Are a s mi : 2.42
Date: 4/26/2007 r
~
Field Crew: A. Davis. A. French, K. Kni ht, B. Roberts, [i. Solchik "
~
~~
wry ,
~
:y. a~~M~~~ ~
5
Station Elevation ~`f~ u,r
,.,,~ -~
n
0.0 2564.64 ~
j
~
6.9 2563.88 '
' "'~ '
°
14.7 2563.20 t~ ~ ~~+~ u
°~
~
21.9 2562.37 ~,_
~-.:
26.5 2561.96 ~v~,N ~
.. `< ; '~
302 2561.94 , i
f ~ ~ • ~ i e ~
~
34.3 2561.46
~.
~ .1^~ ~' -
~~
~
34.7 2559.88 ' p.
°'=
~
36.0 2559.09 1'
~
~
38.4 2558.30 ~ .~ , ~ F
,,
~',~y°~~
39.0 2555.84 ~ " ' ; ~
41.2 2555.08
41.9 2554.55
45.1 2554.07 ~
46.8 2554.13
49.1 2554.87
51.3 2555.34
52.9 2555.86 2568
53.3 2555.80 2566
54.0 2557.13
54.8 2558.46 -. 2564
y
57.2 2558.73 ~ 5 2562
59.8 2559.22 i o 2560
62.2 2559.34 ~ ~'
66.7 2559.24 m 2558
71.7 2558.98 I W 2556
77.8 2559.13 2554
82.1 2559.13 2552
86.1 2559.54
90.2 2560.23 0
99.5 2560.40

SUD1MARY' DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2557.13
Bankfull Croas-Sectional Area: 33.7
Bankfull Width: 15.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max De th at Bankfull: 3.1
Mean De th at Bankfull: 2.2
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ra[io: -
Bank Hei ht Ratio: -
Water Surface Slo a (ft/ft): u.urn~
New River Basin, UTCC-US, XS - 17 POOL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
Station (feet)
XS - 17 POOL - - -Bankfull
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•

Drains a Area (s mi): 2.42
Date: 4/26/2007
Field Crew: A. Davis, A. French, K. Kni ht, B. Roberts, E. Solchik
6.8 2556.57
12.7 2555.90
17.3 2555.66
23.0 2555.67
27.6 2555.48
31.0 2554.92
33.6 2554.35
34.9 2553.61
35.4 2553.18
37.3 2552.55
37.8 2552.32
39.2 2552.24
41.6 2552.19
42.9 2552.04
43.8 2552.32
44.7 2552.54
45.3 2553.66
45.8 2554.17
46.8 2554.37
47.6 2554.96
49.4 2555.30
54.0 2555.39
61.3 2555.91
69.2 2555.98
SUM19ARti' DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2555.20
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 34.0
Bankfull Width: 19.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 2558.4
Flood Prone Width: >80
Max De th at Bankfull: 3.2
Mean De th at Bankfull: ] .7
W / D Ratio: 17.4
Entrenchment Ratio: >4. ]
Bank Height Ratio: ~ ~~
Water Surface Slope {It/tt): _
a
'Y Fl,..
'~ ~
. ~ ~..~f
~ °~
~ ~~
~f
~~
~".'~ ~~ ~r-
~.~, ~'-
i
A ~ {~ ` ~ :.fib ~~i'y fy#
'
"$ °~

°" „~ ~
4i + ~
~ ,
`~t ~ ~~ ~ x r
~ _.
i
r
.
t .
New River Basin, UTCC-US, XS - 18 RIFFLE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
-XS - 18 RIFFLE - - - Bankfull - - - Flood Prone Area
2560
2558
2556
c
a 2554
v
2552
2550

4J
'--,
O
a
aA
. r..,
. r..,
w

2571.5 -~----r---
2571 -
-- --------
--__. _._.._. -..
r- ---.. T... .
~ ------}--
_.__. - -
-- Crab Creek UTCC-US (Profile 5)
-r i----

_. ._
-
-t--- --~.

--
i
~
2570
5 ---

---

-
--
- i
~
---
-
-_ i
I
____----
~
--
~ i
i
- i
I i
i
- i
I i
I l
~ i
~
.
~
2570 -
- --
-
I
i I
i I ~ I I I
i I
i ~
i
x
--r---
i
°- 2569
5 -
i
t --.
i ..-- ~ -T
~
i
"'~
i
i
i
.
w 2569 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i
i
i
i
i
i
~
i
2568
5 i
i i
i ~
i i
i ~ i
i ~ ~ i
i i _
T
i
.
i
i
2568 i

_
~ i

i

__ i

~ i
i i i i
..---...
--
2567
5 ~ --- --- _....
..-
~ ------....
-.--
~ _._ ....... _.-
_. -
_-__
l

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ _..
----
~
.
0 20 40

Elevation BM: 60

~ ~ 80 100 120 140
Channel Distance (ft)
• Elevation # WS 160 180 200 220 240
inc BS HI FS FS depth FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
notes distance station TP bed water LB RB BKF azimuth bed water srf LF RB BKF WS
PROS-ERI 2570-341 2571 .127
PROS-TW 9.7 ____ 2570.103 2571.134
PROS-TW 7 9 - _ 2570.156
PROS-BPO 9.2 ~ ~~ 2569.852 2571.118
PRO5-PO 3.7 _ _
_ 2569.662
PROS-PO 8.2 _
_ 2569.724
PROS-EPO 8.0 _ _ _ 2569.852 2571.175
PROS-TW 5.1
- -
-
- 2570.036
PROS-TW 7.0 ~
~- 2570.105 2571.179
PROS-TW 10.6 _ _ _ _ 2570.106 2571.087
PRO5-BRI 5.8 _ 2570.548 2571.059
PROS-RI 7.6 __ _ 2570.276
PRO5-RI 9.4 _ 2570-06
PROS-RI 69 _
_ _
__ 2570.257
PROS-ERI 8.1 _
~ 2569.964 2570.4
PROS-TW 8.7 _
_ 2569.378 2570.389
PRO5-TW 10.7 _
__ __ 2569.426 2570.343
PROS-BRI 8.3 2569.652 2570.306
PROS-RI 5.7 __ _ _ 2569.766
PROS-ERI 4.5 _ 2569.379 2570.231
PROS-TW 9.5 _ 2569.487 2570.18
PROS-TW 6.8 _ _ _ 2569.433 2570.181
PROS-BR 7.6 _ 2569.72 2570.129
PROS-RI 10.0 _ 2569.25
PROS-RI 9 7 __ 2568.924 2569.134
PROS-RI 11.1 _ 2568.324
PROS-RI 9.2 _ 2568.236
PROS-RI 8.1 _
_ 2567.755 2568.412
PRO5-RI 7.4 __ 2567.889
PRO5-RI 6.7
- 2567.819
PRO5-ERI 4.8 - ''l!' 2567.746 2567.981

I~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~

2565
5 --__..
--__
--
----
' Crab Creek UTCC-US (Profile 8)
.
~
2565 ~
r
1 I > I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1

2564
5
I_
I _ I I
I I 1 I I I
I I I I I
1 I 1
I I i i I
I I 1 I I I
I I 1
.
2564
I ~ I I
1 I
I I I i I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I 1 I I 1
I I
i I I ~ I I i I I ~ I i 1 '. ~. I
'~ 2563
5 -....-~--- - ~-`--~ '
.
°- 2563 I I 1 ~
~~ 1 ~ I I ~. I

~ i I '. - I ~. 1
j
w 2562.5 -- I 1 I I ~ n I
~ I I'l.
---~~~\
- i

2562 I 1 I ~ I I I I I I I

5 I-
2561
-
1
.
-
I ~.
__ _
I 1
I
_
_._.-- '
I I i
I 1 I
I i I ^~y
I R," I
.
-
2561
. r
T
I I
-."
-~
~ 1 ~
I
-
~
I I T
I
I 1 I I
I I I
I 1 I I I
~
I
2560
5 I
I
I i
I I 1 I I 1
I I I I I
I I I I
i I I I
I 1 I I
I
.
0 50

Elevation BM: 100 150
Channel Distance (ft)
• Elevation -~-WS 200 250
inc BS HI FS FS depth FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
notes distance statior TP bed water LB RB BKF azimuth bed watersrf LF RB BKF WS
PRO8 TW 2563.773 2564.908
PRO8_TW 7.4 2564.03
PROS TW=RI? 8.2 2564.459 2564.878
PROS_TW 11.6 _ - 2564.352
PROS TW 12.5 2563.936 2564.833
PROS BRI 16 7 _ _ _ 2564.238 2564.765
PROS RI 7.3 2564.119
PRO8 RI 11.6 _ 2563.57 2564.051
PRO8 ERI 8.9
_ ---- 2563242 2563.759
PRO8 BPO 9.4 2562.759 2563.726
PROS EPO 4.6 2562.463
PRO8 TW 9.3
- 2563.115 2563.738
PRO8 TW 19.1 2562.79 2563.726
PROS TW 14.6 2563.09 2563.68
PROB_BRI 19.9 _ __ 2563.134 2563.673
PROS TW 7.8 2563.009
PROB_ERI 10 8
4 i 2562219 2562.844
PROS BPO 9.1 2561.361 2562.844
PROS PO 8.1 ~ 2560.966
PRO8 EPO 6.2 2561.615 2562.789
PRO8 TW 11.5 2562.174 2562.82
PRO8 BPO 10.5 2561.695 2562.801
PRO8 PO 6.0 2561.094
PROS EPO 17.1 2561.04 2562.766
PROS TW 8.6
'"- 2561.864 2562.675
PROS_BRI 7.5 ' . _ 2562.079 2562.67
PROS_RI 10.4 2561.814
PROS ERI 13.8 2561.154 2561.708

2557.5 ----
---i

~

i r-

~
_
~-----i ____ r _ Crab Creek UTCC-US (Profle 9)
.-- - ---.-.-. ---
. -r-- ---~ -r---
i
~
-- --- ----
--r
~ i
~
--..

i
~
2557 -
i
i i
i i i
i
~
i
i i
i
2556.5
w

~

'

-
~

_. _ __.--

-
~ 2556 __.._
o
~
~ --r--
i
~ ~i ~
-
i
~ --- r---.....__-
i ~
~
~ ~-
i
~

-
" r
i
2555.5
d i
w ~ i
'. i i
', i i i
~ i
i
I r~ i
~ i
2555
i

i

i

i

i

i
i
i

~
- i

----

i
------
2554.5 _ -T
~ -..__.
~ ~ - -.. i -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2554
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Channel Distance (ft)
• Elevation f WS 140 160 180
Elev ation BM:
inc BS HI FS FS depth FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
notes distance station TP bed water LB RB BKF azimuth bed watersrf Lf RB BKF WS
PRO 9 TW 2555.78 2557.268
PRO 9 TW 12.7 -- 2555.849
PRO 9 TW 15.0 2556.156 2557.328
PRO 9 TW 9.3 __ 2556.388
PRO 9 BRI 9.3 2556.773 2557.214
PRO 9 RI 7.3 2556.599 2557.075
PRO 9 ERI 6.9 2556.261 2556.689
PRO 9 TW Z2 _ _ _ 2555.D13
PRO 9 BPO 9.2 __ 2554.589 2556.493
PRO 9 PO 13.7 2554.217 2556.476
PRO 9 PO 18.3 2554.269
PRO 9 EPO 11.3 2555.048 2556.462
PRO 9 TW 10.3 2555.601 2556.487
PRO 9 TW 10.5 ~ 2555.863 2556.444
PRO 9 BRI 8.6 _ _ 2555.961 2556.451
PRO 9 ERI 13.0 _ _ 2555.319 2555.682
PRO 9 TW 3.3 - ;k -. 2554.801 2555.67
PRO 9 TW 6.1 2554.761 2555.66
PRO 9 TW 10.1 2555.076 2555.524
PRO 9 TW 5.9 2554.905 2555.511

. r..,
'L~
N
••••••••i•••••••••••••••••••••••••i••••••••

Riffle Surface
Material - I
Size
Range mm' Count
silUclay 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5
coarse sand 0.5 - 1
ve coarse sand 1 - 2
very fine gravel 2 - 4
fine gravel 4 - 6 3
fine gravel 6 - 8 5
medium gravel 8 - 11 10
medium gravel 11 - 16 9
coarse gravel 16 - 22 10
coarse gravel 22 - 32 6
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 8
very coarse gravel 45 - 64 15
small cobble 64 - 90 15
medium cobble 90 - 128 15
large cobble 128 - 180 3
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256
small boulder 256 - 362
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096 1
total particle count:
bedrock ---------------------
clay hardpan ---------------------
detritus/wood ---------------------
artificial ---------------------
tota count:
Note: XS13- Riffle UTCC-US (
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, ---
~-cumulative % -# of particles
100% silUclay sand ravel cobble boulder
16
90%
---- -- ---- --- ------ 14
80%
---
I L 70% 12 ~
c
c 60% 10 Q
m
50% ---- --- --- --- ---- - 8
n 40% ~
6 ~~
30% y
20% 4
10% 2
0% 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 10 3.4 mean 31.1 silUclay p%
D35 21 12 dispersion 3.3 sand 0%
D50 43 17 skewness -0.14 gravel 66%
D65 63 20 cobble 33%
D84 97 29 boulder 1
D95 130 3g
••••••••••••••i•••••••••••••••••••••••i•IIlllt

••••••••••••i~t••••••••••••••••••••••i•••••
Riffle Surface
Material ~I ~
Size Range (mm;
Count
silUclay 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 1
very coarse sand 1 - 2
very fine gravel 2 - 4 6
fine gravel 4 - 6 3
fine gravel 6 - 8 4
medium gravel 8 - 11 6
medium gravel 11 - 16 6
coarse gravel 16 - 22 11
coarse gravel 22 - 32 8
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 10
ve coarse ravel 45 - 64 8
small cobble 64 - 90 16
medium cobble 90 - 128 11
large cobble 128 - 180 8
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256 3
small boulder 256 - 362
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count: 101
bedrock -------------
clay hardpan -------------
detritus/wood -------------
artificial -------------
total count: 101
Note: XS14- Riffle Gau a UTCC-US
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, --

silUcla sand -

ravel
+cumulative %
cobble boulder
-# of particles
18
100%
90% 16
80% I 14

I t
70% J
I 12 c
c 60% ~ Q
'=
I 10 `,
a~i 50%
---- ------
--- ------
'I °
I J 8 d
n 40% i t ~
'I g m
30% I I w

20% I
_ I I
y 4

10% 1
I 1
1
2

0% 1
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 9 mean 31.5 silUclay 0%
D35 21 dispersion 3.6 sand 1%
D50 39 skewness -0.09 gravel 61
D65 68 cobble 38%
D84 110 boulder 0%
D95 160

Riffle Surface ~'~
Material Size Range (mm; Count
silt/clay 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5
coarse sand 0.5 - 1
very coarse sand 1 - 2
very fine gravel 2 - 4
fine gravel 4 - 6
fine gravel 6 - 8 3
medium gravel 8 - 11 8
medium gravel 11 - 16 12
coarse gravel 16 - 22 15
coarse gravel 22 - 32 6
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 17
ve coarse ravel 45 - 64 13
small cobble 64 - 90 16
medium cobble 90 - 128 8
large cobble 128 - 180 7
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256
small boulder 256 - 362
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count: 105
bedrock -------------
clay hardpan -------------
detritus/wood -------------
artificial -------------
total count: 105
Note: XS16- Riffle UTCC-US
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, --

100% silt/clay sand -

ravel
+cumulative %
cobble boulder
-# of particles
18
90% 16
80% ---- ------ --- ------ -
14
C
Ir°
70%
'
. 12 c
c 60% Q
`~ 10 ~
a~i 50% ---- ------ --- ----- °
8 v
n 40% I n
I 6 a
30%
I i

20% I
I 4

10% I
I
2

0% I
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 13 mean 33.6 silUclay 0%
D35 21 dispersion 2.6 sand 0%
D50 38 skewness -0.06 gravel 70%
D65 55 cobble 30%
D84 87 boulder 0%
D95 140

Riffle Surface _
Material ~
Size Ran a mm;
Count
silt/clay 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5
coarse sand 0.5 - 1
ve coarse sand 1 - 2 3
very fine gravel 2 - 4 1
fine gravel 4 - 6 5
fine gravel 6 - 8 2
medium gravel 8 - 11 7
medium gravel 11 - 16 5
coarse gravel 16 - 22 8
coarse gravel 22 - 32 5
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 6
very coarse gravel 45 - 64 13
small cobble 64 - 90 14
medium cobble 90 - 128 20
large cobble 128 - 180 7
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256 3
small boulder 256 - 362 1
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count:
bedrock ---------------------
clay hardpan ---------------------
detritus/wood ---------------------
artificial ---------------------
tota count:
Note: XS18- Riffle UTCC-US
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, --
~-cumulative % -# of particles
100% silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
90%
80%
c
I r
70%
c
3
c
w 60% m
c
U 50% ~
~
~ 40%
a ~
30% N
20%
10%

0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 10 3.4 mean 34.6 silt/clay p%
D35 30 12 dispersion 3.9 sand 3%
D50 56 17 skewness -0.20 gravel 52%
D65 82 20 cobble 44%
D84 120 29 boulder 1
D95 170 39
25
---- --------- --------- - 20
15

1
~
1
, 10

'I 5
1
0

Sands _ ' - Gravels ~
1 '. i I~ ~ 1 II I I I,
-
-
- Cobbles
~
- - Boulders
, I ~
-I--'-r++-rr --~ e rock
11
r-~-1-r-r,
' -r.. _-~; -r-r-tt~ -. .t..
1 1 I I I I I I' , 1 1 1 1
+I- ~
1 1
1
I 11 ; 'J_J., it I i I I ~~I 1 I 1
I I V I I I l l i l
I _ _
I 11.1I~ 1111
I I I I II i ~ 7 [II
I I V I I I I I I I
I Yi 1 1 ~~ I ~. ITI I
I '{ 1 1 1 1 I I+I I
I
I I I 'i I I I I I I 1 1 r
t~
-r
-r
I I I I 1~
+
~ ~1 I
! ~ ' I I
I I
I ~-. 1
1 i i
~ 1 I I I
I I I I

I I
1 I t I r
I I I I
~
I, ! I
.---1111---
I I I I
~.)_}I- )
I I I.{ 1
l iI I
I III 1
l l l ~ I
I I I
I I I 1

I 1 1 I ~
I I I I 111
b I I; I

i I 11 11
l l i I I
I t t l l l

I I I I I
11 ill
I I I I I
! 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 11 11 ~'.

I I I I I

-- ;
I i V I I I
' I' 1' I i,

I I I I'I 1 1
i I l i
I V I I I

II 1 1 11
11111
I 1 I.t 1 1
I I I I
I I I 1 1 1

I ~. I l l f l i
. -~"-~'-Yy-i-ri - ..._-~._.r ~..~r,_y_'
I ~ I I I I ~ 11 i i
_.-~ ~-. -~T--1-!_J._
1 '. I II llli ~~I I I
I
l I 1 I 1

I I I I1
~1 Il! I
-I--4-L-}-.
111~ 1 ~-YttF
I V I I I
t-.
I I. Illl -

i I._-H-Y-1
I I I i l
-ITS '
I I I I1'i
••••••i••••••••••i•••••i••i••••i•••••••••••

Smallest Sieve Wei
ht Percent Stream:
Passed mm g
oz % Item Finer Than Watershed: '°
<1 21 9.2% 9.2% Location: .
1.0 18.5 8.1 % 17.3% Note:
2.0 15.5 6.8% 24.1%
4.0 1.0 0.4% 24.5% Bulk Sample Sieve Analysis
8.0 26.0 11.4% 35.9%
16.0 48.5 21.2% 57.1
°

31.5
98.0
42.9%
100.0%
100 /o Sands

~
i i i
Gravels C
~ obbles Boulders
i Bedrock
i
128.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 90% ~-~-~-+
~~ --*-
-~ -~~-'
~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~~~I
256.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 80% -~ ~-a-~-~'-+- *'- +
> 256.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% ~ 70% - '-~i - `-
T
tal: 228
5 100% ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ -,_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~_~ ~ _ ~- - ' ' ' ' '-
o . 60% ~
~
ii 50 /o i
I i i i i e
~ h i l l ~ iii , ,, i ~ ~ i; i, i
~
I ~ I l i ~ ~ ~ IG ~ ~ I i
~ ~ i: i i
~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ,. i i
I' i. i I ~
i i i i l i i, i i i ~ i iyi , i i i ~~ ,iii
-
--
-
--
l ~ ~. i i,
~ ~Tr
~ 30% ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
,
,
r
r
~--~-•-r-r,-r-- r ,
20%
~ , ~ i ~~~I ~~~ i ~ ~ ~~ii ~ cis , ~~~I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i
°
10 % -
i
1
~. i i i i.
~ ~ i iii i i i ~~ i. i„
f ,
i ~ ~. i,~
~ i _ i i ~~
0%
-
0.1
1
10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
~-Cumulative Percent
10000

• Percent Item ',
Size percent less than mm Percent b substrate t pe
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
7.6 7.6 12.' 24.5 29.1 0% 24% 76% 0% --- ---
•••••••••••••i••i•••••i•i••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••r•••••!•••••!•!•••••••~•~••••••••i
I~rYp~oa/1Y a~~~ j~
Smallest Sieve Weight Percent Stream: :. ~°
Passed mm oz % Item Finer Than Watershed: ..- -
<1 4.5 1.5% 1.5% Location:
1.0 6.0 2.0% 3.5% Note:
2.0 4.0 1.3% 4.8%
4.0 5.0 1.7% 6.5% B

8.0
13.0
4.3%
10.8% ulk Sample Sieve Analysis
16.0 24.5 8.2% 19.0%
31.5 243.0 81.0% 100.0% 100% Sands Gravels Cobbles Boulders Bedrock

128.0
0.0
0
0%
100
0%
90% - I I I I
r-r--. -t-- I I I I I I I l
___ i I i
~
'

256.0
0.0 .
0.0% .
100.0%
I 1 '. V I I I
I I I I I I
~ ~__r
I I V
I I I _
I ~-..__r~y_
I I I I I I ~._
~
_
I V I I I
> 256.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% ~ 70% i I ~Ll I I I ~-, ~
I I I I I i 11 I I I I L
i ; 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ V I I I

Total:
300.0
100% L
~

N
o
60 /° I I 1 I I I I I
, , , , ;y

-- I V I I I
_ I I

i I I 1 V
I I I I
I 1

~
-~ _-
~~ I I ( I I I I
I I J_I
~ i I I I I 1 1

~
I I I I

C
~
o
50 /o I I I 1 1 1 1 1
I I ( I I I I I I
l l l l
I V I I I
~ I 1 I V
1 I
( I I I I

I I I ~

I : I I I i l l l

: ~ I ' I I I I i
, ( I I I I
I I ( I I I I

C
4O°/U I I I I I I
I
1 ' I I I I I I
I
~ I 111
t I I I I I I ! i V
I I I V I I I
I I I I W
~ I : I I 111
~ I I V I I I I I V I I I
I I I I 1 1 1
U
30% I I ~ I i l l l
I ~ I ( I I I I I ( I I I I
~ I I I I I I V
I I I , I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I ~ I I i l I V I I I
i ~ I I I 1 1
2O°/U 1 I I I I I i I I I I I I r l l l I i I I I I I 1 V I I I i~
10% I I I h i l l 1 I I , I 1 ~ I I V I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I ~I
I I I I I I 1 I
0 % • I I
T -1-i~ I ~. I I I
- I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I l l l f
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
~f-Cumulative Percent • Percent Item
Size ercent less than mm Percent b substrate e
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
12.4 18.3 20.7 27.6 30.2 0% 5% 95% 0% --- ---

t ~ 5
__
~
Smallest Sieve Wel ht
~ Percent Stream:

Passed mm g
oz
% Item
Finer Than
Watershed:
<1 43 9.1 % 9.1 % Location: r
1.0 32.5 6.9% 16.1 % Note:
2.0 30.5 6.5% 22.6%
4.0 25.0 5.3% 27.9% Bulk Sample Sieve Analysis
8.0 44.0 9.4% 37.2%
16.0 93.0 19.8% 57.0%
31.5 202.0 43.0% 100.0% 100% Sands Gravels Cobbles Boulders
~ Bedrock
128.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 90% +--~ -*-~*-~ ~`-'
256.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 80% -- ~
i i -+--~+-+-~
~
i i i i i i '~~'
i i i i
i i i i ~'
i v i i i T
~ ~ i iii i
> 256
0 0
0 0
0% 100
0% m o
70 / ii-u
- - t
. .
470
0 .
100% . r
~ o ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~
Total: . 60%

c ~ ~. i ii i i~ i iii i i i i i ii i i ~, i iii, .. ~~ i ;;:
~ 40% ~
i ~ ; iii.
- i i iii i i ~,:i
i i i iii i : i
t i i i i i~, i
iii i - ; i ~, ii
i i ~. ii i ; ;;~
i i ii~'
G) 30% ~
20%

0 ~
~ ~ i i j
: ~ ~ ~ ~ i
i ~ i
~ ~ i ~ i i i iii i i i ;;~'
10 /o

~
~
'
M
0%
0.1 1 _
~
10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
-i-Cumulative Percent 10000

• Percent Item
Size ercent less than mm Percent b substrate t pe
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
6.8 6.8 12.5 24.5 29.1 0% 23% 77% 0% --- ---
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••i•••i••••••

-
Smallest
Sieve
Passed mm Weight
oz
% Item Percent
Finer Than Stream ~ • ~~~~ ~~~ ~ "~-.
Watershed: `~ ~~`
<1 1 0.3% 0.3% Location ~ ~ ~ ,
1.0 3.5 1.0% 1.3% Note ;~~ Ia ~ ~;
2.0 4.5 1.3% 2.6%
4.0 7.0 2.0% 4.6% B
lk S

8.0
20.0
5.7%
10.2% u
ample Sieve Analysis
16.0 48.0 13.7% 23.9%
31.5 267.5 76.1 % 100.0% 100% Sands Gravels Cobbles Boulders Bedrock
128
0 0
0 0
0% 100
0% 90% I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I
.

256.0 .

0.0 .

0.0% .

100.0%

80%
I I I I I i l
+T--.
I I V I I I
.---1
I 1 I V
I I I
I -,~-~-+
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~~t.
I I V I I I

> 256.0
0.0
O.O%
100.0%
L
70%
_ _~L ~ I I I I I
I ! I I I
I I I I I
I 1 1 _.__-+
1
1 ILL I I I _.
I I V I I I
Total: 351.5 100°/U ~
60% i I I I I I 1 I
I ~ I I I I I I 11 I I I
I I I I I 1 i I 1 11
__ I I I
I I I I I i I I I
I I I I I I I 11 I I I
I I ( I I I I
d
LL
SO% ~ I I ( I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I
I I ( I I I I I I I I I
1 I I 1 1 i l l
1 1 1 1
1 I I i l l l l
I I V I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I

C
40% 1 I I V I I I
I ~. V I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1
I I 1 7 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1
I I I V 1 1 1
I I I I
I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
I I I i l l l I I I I I I I
I ( I I I I
U
30% I ! I ~ I I
I I V I I I I I I I I
I I IIII. I I I 1 1
I I V 1 1 1
I I I I
I I I I l l i l
I I V I I I ~ I I i l l l
I I I 11 1 I'
d 2O°/U I I V I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1
10% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I i
! i I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 i I ( I I I I
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
f Cumulative Percent 10000

• Percent Item
Size ercent less than mm Percent b substrate t e
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
10.7 17.7 20.2 27.3 30.1 0% 3% 97% 0% --- ---

t Sieve
ll
S ht
Wei Percent Stream:
ma
es
Passed mm g
oz % Item Finer Than Watershed:
<1 44 10.3% 10.3% Location:
1.0 43.5 10.2% 20.4% Note:
2.0 34.0 7.9% 28.4%
4.0 39.0 9.1% 37.5% Bulk Sample Sieve Analysis
8.0 56.0 13.1 % 50.5%
16.0 73.5 17.2% 67.7%
°
k
31.5 138.5 32.3% 100.0% 100 /° Sands
I I i t Gravels
~ I 1 1 1 I I II Cobbles
I Boulders
I I Bedroc
I I,
128.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 90%
I I V I I I
I (IIII I I I II
IIII 1 r '
I 11 I I I' ~~
I (IIII
256.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 80%
I I V I I I ~~ -
!~ ~ I I I I ~ I 1 1
1 1 1 I
I I I I I I I
I V I I I
O
O% 100
0% N ° I ~u
> 256.0 0.0 . . r 70 /o I i I I I I I I I I I I Ili I ~ V I I I I' I I I I I I I` 1 I I I I i
428
5 100% ~ I I
I I I I I I ~ I I I _ I ~ ~_~_I I I
Total: . ~ 60% __
~ I ~ I I I i l I I. V I I I I I I i l l l l 1 i I I' I I I V I I I
I I '. V I I I I ~ V I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I ( I I I I I V I I I ',
jl 50 ~0

° I I I ( I I I I
I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I i I ( I
I I i i~ l l I I I I I I I I' I
I I I I I ~. 1 I I I I
I '~ I I I I 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I
I
~
~ 4O
/U I I V I I
I ~ I I+ 1 1
`. I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I ~ I 1 1 I I I I
1 III I
j 1 I I I I 1 1
l I I l t l l I I I I I I
I I V I I I ',
li 30%
~: I I I I
I V I I I I ~. I
I I I i, I
'
j I ~ I I I 1
:~----~-1-~-
1
V I I I
20% I i I I I I I I
' ~ I I I I i i 1 I I I I I i I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1
10% I I I I I I I I I I I I ~.. I , 1 1 1 1 1 1
~ < i I l l l
~ j
I I i ! I I I I
e
0%
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
~-Cumulative Percent • Percent Item I,
Size percent less than mm Percent b substrate t e
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
3.3 3.3 7.8 22.5 28.4 0% 28% 72% 0% --- ---
••••••i••••••••••••••••••i•••••••••••••••••

••••~•~,•!•i~••~-••••••••••••i~•~i•••••••••~
~
Smallest Sieve Weight Percent Stream: ~_.~ ~ - =
Passed mm oz % Item Finer Than Watershed =_.~.:°
<1 8 2.2% 2.2% Location:
1.0 10.0 2.8% 5.0% Note:
2.0 11.5 3.2% 8.3%
4.0 17.0 4.8% 13.0% B
lk

8.0
31.5
8.8%
21.9% u
Sample Sieve Analysis
16.0 57.5 16.1 % 38.0%
31.5 221.0 62.0% 100.0% 100 ~ Sands Gravels Cobbles Boulders Bedrock
128.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 90% -t-_,-,-r - _,_, _

256.0
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
80%
T
~; ~~y _ .~r_~~~
~

> 256.0
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
s
70%
'
L- I ~ ~ I I ~
I ~ _
T~ ___,

Total:
356.5
100%
~

60%
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~~~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ii 50% i i i i iii i i i iii i i i iii i i i, i iii i i i i iii

a 30%
20% ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
10% ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~

0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm) _
j-Cumulative Percent 10000

• Percent Item
Size er cent less than mm Percent b substrate e
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
5.0 14.1 18.2 26.4 29.8 0% 8% 92% 0% --- ---

i•~•••~•••••~••~•~•~••••••••i•~•••••••••••~•
~d
r~

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: UTCC-US (Crab Creek Site) Reach: Date: 4/24/07 Crew: AH
Bank Height (ft): Bank HeighU Root Depthl Root Bank Angle Surface
Bankfull Height (ft): Bankfull Ht Bank Height Density % (Degrees) Protection%
Value Range
---------------- 1.0 1.1
-------------------- 0.9 1.0
-------------------- ---80 -------100 -- 0.0 20.0
------------------- 80------- 100---
------
VERY LOW Index Range
---------------- 1.0 1.9
-------------------- 1.0 1.9
-------------------- --1_0 1.9
------------- ---1:0-------1_9-- ---10-------1_9---
Choice V: I: V: I: V: 90.0 I: 1.5 V: I: V: I:
Value Range
---------------- 1.11 1.19
-------------------- 0.5 ------ 0.89 --
------- 55 ------- 79---
------ 21.0 60.0
------------------- 55--------79 ---
------
LOW Index Range 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9
--------- 2.0 3.9
--------------------
ttl
~„ ----------------
Choice --------------------
V: I: --------------------
V: I: -------------------
V: I: ----------
V: I: V: I:
N
"' Value Ran a
9 1.2 1.5 0.49
0.3 54
-
30 61.0 80.0
------------------- --- 30--------54 ---
d ------------
--
MODERATE Index Range
------------- - --------------------
4.0 5.9
-------------------- --
------
-------
4.0 5.9
-------------------- --
-------
------
4.0 5.9
------------------- 4.0 5.9
------------------- 4.0 5.9
--------------------
c
O Choice V: 1.5 I: 5.9 V: 0.30 I: 5.9 V: I: V: 75.0 I: 5.4 V: 40.0 I: 5.1
.O Value Range 1.6 2.0 0.15
0.29 29
15 81.0 90.0
---------------- 15 -------29 ---
-------
L ----------------
HIGH Index Range --------------------
6.0 7.9 --
------
-------
6.0 7.9 --
---
-----------
6.0 7.9 ---
6.0 7.9 6.0 7.9
I
Y ----------------
Choice --------------------
V: I: -------------- -----
V: I: -------------------
V: I: -------------------
V: I: --------------------
V: I:
m Value Range 2.1 2.8 0.14
0.05 5 14 91.0 119.0 14
10

----------------
VERY HIGH Index Range
----------------
--------------------
8.0 9.0
-------------------- --
------
-------
8.0 9.0
--------------------
-------------------
8.0 9.0
-------------------
-------------------
8.0 9.0
------------------- -------
---
-------
8.0 9.0
--------------------
Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I:
_- Value Range - ---------'2.8-------- ------- <0_05- -------- <5 ----~---'119
EXTREME Index Range -
--------------- ---------~~ -------- ---------~~ --------
-------
-------- ~~ - -------- ~~------ -
-------
---------~~ -
Choice V: 1: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I:
V = value, I =index SUB-TOTAL (Sum one index from each column) 23.8

Bank Material Description: Bank Sketch
Grass vegetation
Ban k Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
BANK MATERIAL ADJUSTMEN 5

Stratification Comments:
Stratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMEN 5

VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5-9.9 10-19.9 20-29.9 30-39.9 40-45.9 46-50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 33.8
BEHI RATING HIGH

C~
bA
O
''C3
°'~
b!J
. ,..,
c~
••••••••••••••••••••~a••••~••••••••••••••~•

Gauge 1 (XS-14) Rating Curve
2.50E+02
2.00E+02
1.50E+02
y
w
V
N
O1 1.00E+02
c~
t
y
0
5.00E+01
0.00E+00
-5.00E+01
Stage (ft)
-Discharge (cfs) Poly. (Discharge (cfs))
5
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

-
D ischarge ( cfs)

~
fT
N
O
?
(.7
~1 O
1 O U ~
N ~
7 O (T ~
v
O ~ N
O N
Ul O N -
~P
U1 .
90-aad-Z ~ ,

90-aaa-g ~ it
~
90-aaa-8 L ', (
' ;
90-aaa-~Z i

90-aad-~Z -
90-aaQ-LZ ~~ I ~'~

90-aa4-pE
~~,,

i 1
§

LO-ue~-Z II ' •
LO-ue~-g I I
' N
~
LO-ue~-g ~ ~ n
•

v
LO-ue~-~ ~
' I
~~~ °•~
R N rn ~

~ LO-ue~-~ 6 I ' ~ ~ ~ ~
~
-ue
-
I '
' ~ 1 o c~ ~
~ _
o LO
~
L ~ I _
I
~ •
~-

Lp-ue~-OZ
~
~ ~, •
o
ti ~
~ ~
LO-ue~-8Z I~
~
~
~
~ ~ 3
~
LO-ue~-9Z
I
LO-ue~-gZ

LO-ga~-l ~
LO-ga~-~ ~ 'I
~
LO-ga~-L ~ ~ ~ ~
'
- -
LO Qa~ 0 L ' I
LO-Qa~-E L ~, y -
I
'
-a-
LOq X96

I

i

O
O
N
O
O
~ O
O ~
~ _

N _ _

~P 67 _
N
07 -
Rainfall ( in)

Crab Creek Gauge 1
(XS-14) Discharge Hydrograph
02/16/07 to 04/24/07
70
60
50
v
m 40
rn
s
0 30
20 _ _ _ - _ - _ __ _ __
10 - _ _ _ _ __ -- _-__ --
0
cn ~ w ~ ~ ~ - cn cfl w ~ ~ ~ ~ N rn o ~
~ ~ ~ -n v v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -a -o D D D D
a' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v m v v v v 7 ~ a -v -a -o
i ~ i i O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ -z
O O O O V V O O O O O O V V O O O O
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
Date
~~ Rainfall - Discharge
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
I~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~tit~~~~~~~~~

Crab Creek Gauge 1
(XS-14) Discharge Hydrograph
04/24/07 to 06/19/07
10
8
6
m
ca
t
~' 4
0
2
0
N N ~ CT O ~ ~ N N N N O ~ ~ ~
W ~I ~ ~ ~ W ~I -• CT1 CO L L O ? 00
C C L L L
"~ .D v fll L11
`G `G `G iU N N ~ ~ 7 7 C C C
O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O
V V V V v O O O O O V V V
~I V V V V
Date
D Rainfall - Discharge
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
~a
c
0.4 '~
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Q
i
~•••••••••••~••••~i•~•••••••••~••••••••••••

O
. ,..,
U
O
U
bA
. r-,
. r,
w

•••~~•••••••••••••••••••••r•••••••i••••••••

•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~•
- 21 RIFFLE
0.0
4.6
9.5
1
] 5.6
16.7
17.5
20.5
22.1
23.4
24.4
25.8
27.2
28.8
33.7
34.8
35.7
37.0
39.5
42.9
47.0
51.1
A. Frcnch, K.
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2537.89
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 42.8
Bankfull Width: 20.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 2540.5
Flood Prone Width: >60
Max De th at Bankfull: 2.6
Mean De th at Bankfull: 2.1
W / D Ratio: 10.1
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.9
Bank Hei ht Ratio: I.0
Water Surface Slo a (ft/ft): 0.008
"t'~~ ~ '~
~rx~f LLs k?
s^+ ,
.. ~~~w ,
~~~~~~ ~
~~ w~°°ti
r
s. ~ s-,~ - ¢ wt
~ ~r ~
~ - 4~
i1. `~''
°_~^~ .. `fix: ,_-
~~
_ "~'
'~~
New River Basin, [JTCC-DS, XS - 21 RIFFLE
2544
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
~-- XS - 21 RIFFLE - - - Bankfull - ~ - Flood Prone Area
2542
2540
..
~ 2538
0 2536
v
~ 2534
2532
2530

River Basin: Ncti~ ~ ;~~ ~
ra
Watershed: l1TC'C'-DS ,
~- ~ ~t a w w ~ w ~
~ ~ ~ t, f,x"~" t '. '~
XS ID kS - 22 POOL r~ ~' "' ~
~
~~ ~'~ w
~~ 7
~~
Draina a Area (s
Date: mi): 2.64
4/26/2007 ~r
~
~ ~
,.A
° ~
~ ~ '
"'
III
Field Crew: A. Davis, A. French, K. Kni ~ht, B. Roberts, li. Solchik ~
~d r
~rt ~
„z
..
~
~~
Station E levation .~ '~d'"""
~ ~ ~
p
~
0.0 2538.78 ~
^
'
+~o '"~
5.1 2538.84 ~
c
9.8 2538.96 , ~„ ~
~;
' ~u
15.7 2538.89 a
..~,;
"` ".,~
19.6 2538.99 `'
~
'~
.
~
22.1 2538.80 ~
~
~
'
` 4~ ,
23.8 2538.32 V~ ~
24.9 2534.98 {~ ~ ~
,p
~~
25.7 2534.60 "
_
~t a
} '~R.
~

~'~
26.9 2534.33 :
y, ,icy e ~
~ u ~
28.9 2533.85 rt „„ ~
,," ;. i,
30.9 2533.92
32.1 2534.25
33.6 2534.75
35.0 2535.25 New River Basin, UTCC-DS, XS - 22 POOL
36.4 2535.53
3Z6 2535.86
39.6 2536.73 ' 2542
42.2 2537.38
44.9 2537.71 2540 - - -- --
47.6 2538.16 ~,
51.4 2538.62 ~ 2538 ----
54.0 2538.21 z - - - - - - - - - -
o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
56.7 2537.93 ~ ~ 2536
W
2534
2532
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Statron (feet)
XS - 22 POOL - - -Bankfull
Sl!MMA12Y DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 2537.4
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 40.0
Bankfull Width: 18..3
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max De th at Bankfull: 3.5
Mean De th at Bankfull: 2.2
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Rank Height Ralio:
~~~airr Suo lxcc Slope (R/11 ); ii ~~~~i~
••i•••••••••••••••••!••••••••i•••••••••••••I

N
.-~
O
bA
.'..,
r--~
.'..,
w

Grab Creek UTCC-US-DS (Profile 10)
~~'!"1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ! I 1 I I T I 1 I I I I I 1.. 11 I._I I I -1-1 l -t_-I I I I I r
55.1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I

/552 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1

-
.551 I I I I Tt~l I I 1 1 i I I 1 I I I
_
I __ I I I
I
~~ I I I

>
w2,54~1
I I I

`T~
---~
I I I I
I I ~

-
F
I ! I
I
+
I I I

___
1 ! -
I 1 I~-`lL __
I i __ -.._-
I I -_
n..}q __.
.._
_
I '. -.__
I I

154H
I 1 1 1
-f-
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
l i l l
1 1 1 1
I I I `r
I ~-}-y-
I

254] ~- I I 1 i I I I I I I I I
`F~
I
~~

2.54E
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I -
I I
~ 50 1p0 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Cnennal Olstance (tl)
Flav~linn ~ WS
Elevation BM'

notes '
distance
station BS HI
o FS
To FS
hr•<! tle M
water FS
LB FS
RB FS
BKF FS AZ
muth
zi ELEV
bed ELEV
t
d ELEV
LF ELEV
RB ELEV ELEV

PROtU TW
:...
Iii
...
-•,

'~i5L.315 wa
er s BKF W3

2553
119
PRO10 TW H.II _~.' 159 .
2553.161
PROIO TW 9.N _ _':'334 2553.119
PRO10_TW 13.5 52.33fi 2553-066
PRO10 BRI 17.0 I ~ "•52.506 2553.016
PRO1D RI 10.1 ~ '.3.259
- 2552.796
PRO10 RI 9.2 ;1122 2552.689
PRO10 ERI 6.3 `x'..784 2552
457
PRO10 TW 6.6 '51.136 .
2552
459
PRO10 BRI 8.8 '1.005 .
2552
426
PRO10 RI 9.9 '1.735 .
2552.183
PRO10 RI 114 ';1.594 2552.11
PRO10 ERI 12.0 50.614 2551.69
PRO10 TW 5.0 '+;1.506 2551.fi49
PRO10 TW 7.8 ~ -'~0 192
PRO10 TW 8.6 --.550.62
PRO10_TW 85 _ _ '5(1653 2551.861
PRO10 TW 127 ''.,0.704
PRO10 TW 6.6 ":09]1
PRO10 TW 14.5 -.'.I 068 2551
fi 13
PRO10 TW 11.1 Stt 884 .
PRO10 TW
PRO10 TW=FENCE 12.9
9.2 'd? 769
_ ',ir617 2551.562
2551.557
PRO10 BRIE
PRO10 RIF 268
10.4
~ ':'357
'x1.053 2551.528
2551.226
PRO10 ERIF 126 ''+1348 2550472
PROtD_TW=SC_TW 7,4 ~ SA9.92
2550.389
PRO10 TW 10.fi '-19.]2 2550.209
PRO10 TW 9.2 '. 19396 2550
211
PRO1D BPO 7.6 9.121 .
177
2550
PRO10_ PO 13.0 ~ -"n.835 .
PRO10 PO 150 ~ ;x+.666
PRO10 PO 14.3 I - '.++813
PRO19 EPO 6.3 - '-:19.035
~ 2550.201
PROI(1 TVJ 94 ~.'19.281
PRO10 GL 10.6 _ 19449 2550.237
PRO10 GL 110 '.^9505
PRO10 ERIF 20.1 ~ ~ 591 2550.102
PRO10 RIF 9.8 ,"x:19.21 2549.735
PRO10 RIF=GAUGE2 7.5 ~ ;++.169
~ 2549
526
PRO10 _ERIF 167 ~ '
.~q.343 .
2546.985
PRO10 TW 6.6 ~ _ I'--+.152 2546.996
PRO10 TW 8.3 ~~ .4'2]5 254&991
PROIO TW 10.5 ~ '-..ii H91 2546.978
PRO10 TW 11.7 I' fi76
PRO1D TW 6.6 ~~ i; R53 2546.954
PRO10 TW 8.9 ~ ~,. ~r4727 254fl94
PRO10 BRI 3.7 -.'~i 444 2548.923
PRO10 RI 7.A .".A /.75 2548
732
PRO10_RI 5.6 ~ ~..I~i.023 .
2546.fi 16
PRO10 ERI
PRO10 TW 6.5
8.7 ~,-11717
-,: i.116
~
--t
--- .'546168
1548.273
i••~~~~~t•~~•••••••••••••••~•!••••••••••••••

••~•~••••••••s••~••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Crab Creek UTCC-DS (Profile 11)
2538 -r --~ -- ~
1
I ~, '~ --- r----

I

I 1

I
_...__- __.. .____-1..._
_
~ '~ I i I
-.~_. I i~ I
- _.
I I
i I I
I -i -- -- -°-

I I
I

1 1 ~.
~. I
1 I
I
1 I I
I I I ~ t
2537
I i i
I ~°^~l I
i I
I
i I
', I
I
i
I ~,
i I
i I I I
I
ti-
i
I I 1
~, 1 I 1
1 1
1 I
I '~
I i

I
.-. 2536 ---+ I-^m - - ..
~ i I - -
- - ~
I I I I. I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I 1 1
~ I ~. I I I I
~ ~ i
1 I
~ -- -~---
2535 -_.I --`----1--'
I _ _.~-
I I _
I I _
I
_
~ __~-..
I I I
~
I -
t I 1 -
I I
I _.
N
_

w I i I I i I I I

A
~ ~

I
1
I ~
~ I
I I ab "'
,~:._:_ss~v:~. I I I I I
2534
I i I ~.
~ I
I ~
~ I
!-u~ .,a I ~ I
1

,uh
1
:.-"

I

'
I 1 ~
I I
~. i I
i __ I I
1_ . I I I
~ I I I I I 1
I I I 1 1 I
°.. I
I
I 1
1 I
"'
I I
":: ""f" '
2533 -_ __ -_
I I I
I i
~ I I I
I
I i I
i I
I '~ I
I
I 1
I I
I I 1 I I I I
I I I
I I I I i I 1
I I 1
I I I I I
1 ~
1 i
i I
2532
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Channel Distance (ft)
'', -v- Elevation -~-WS
Elevation BM: '
i BS HI FS FS de th FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
note s nc
distance station 100 TP bed water LB RS BKF azimuth bed water srf LF RB BKF WS
PRO11 TW 100 2536.358 2537.013
PRO11 BRIF 12.0 00 2.;36.515 2536.977
PRO11 RIF 13.0 100 2536.269
PRO11 ERIF 14.5 100 2E%35.802 2536.325
PRO11 TW 9 8 100 2535.562 2536.326
PRO11 BRIF 9 5 100 2535.829 2536.243
PRO11 RIF 10.2 100 2635.728
PRO11 RIF 7.5 100 2535.227 2535.908
PRO11 RIF 8.5 100 2535.049
PRO11 RIF 9.4 100 2535.339 2535.855
PRO11 RIF 5.9 100 2`35.389 2535.712
PRO11 RU 6.7 100 234.825
PRO11 BPO 6.9 100 2533.777 2535.497
PRO11 EPO 5.3 100 25 33.729 2535.515
PRO11 GL 6.8 100 2534.06
PRO11 TW 10.1 100 2534.825 2535.478
PRO11
TW 8.1 100 2534.269
_
PRO11 TW 9.2 100 2533.691 2535.334
PRO11 TW 8.4 100 2534.265
PRO11 TW 12.8 100 2534.235
PRO11 BRIF 18.2 100 2534.644 2535.26
PRO11 RIF 17.2 100 2534.115
PRO11 ERIF 20.0 100 2533.621 2533.894
PRO11 TW 23.6 100 2532.795 2533.79
PRO11 TW 41.1 100 232.853 2533.786
PRO11 TW 22.0 100 2532.359 2533.798

CD
~•
CD
II II II II lillllllllllillllllllllllilllllllllllllllll••11••II••II•Ilil•••••

••••••••i•••~•••••••••!••••••••••••••••••••
rRiffle Surface
Material Size Ran a (mm' Count
silt/clay 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25 1
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 2
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 2
ve coarse sand 1 - 2
very fine gravel 2 - 4 1
fine gravel 4 - 6 4
fine gravel 6 - 8 2
medium gravel 8 - 11 9
medium gravel 11 - 16 8
coarse gravel 16 - 22 8
coarse gravel 22 - 32 3
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 9
very coarse gravel 45 - 64 19
small cobble 64 - 90 19
medium cobble 90 - 128 17
large cobble 128 - 180 2
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256
small boulder 256 - 362
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count:
bedrock ---------------------
clay hardpan ---------------------
detritus/wood ---------------------
artificial ---------------------
tota count:
Note: XS19- Riffle Gau a UTCC-DS
Riffle Surfiace Pebble Count, ---
-~-cumulative % -# of particles
silt/cla
Y sand gravel cobble boulder
20
100%
90%
80%
C ~

c 60%
c 50% ~
U
n
40% d
30% ~'
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 9.5 3.4 mean 29.9 silt/clay 0%
D35 22 12 dispersion 3.5 sand 5%
D50 48 17 skewness -0.21 gravel 59%
D65 65 20 cobble 36%
D84 94 29 boulder 0%
D95 120 39

18
---- --------- --------- 16
14
12
---- -------- -------- 10
8
6
4
2
0

j Riffle Surface ',~
Material Size Range (mm; Count
silUclay 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 1
coarse sand 0.5 - 1
very coarse sand 1 - 2
very fine gravel 2 _ 4
fine gravel 4 - 6 5
fine gravel 6 - 8 4
medium gravel 8 - 11 5
medium gravel 11 - 16 7
coarse gravel 16 - 22 10
coarse gravel 22 - 32 2
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 3
ve coarse ravel 45 - 64 7
small cobble 64 - 90 16
medium cobble 90 - 128 18
large cobble 128 - 180 14
ve lar a cobble 180 - 256 7
small boulder 256 - 362 1
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count: 100
bedrock -------------
clay hardpan -------------
detritus/wood -------------
artificial -------------
total count: 100
Note: XS21-Riffle UTCC-DS
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, - --
-cu mulative % -# of particles
100% silUclay sand gravel cobble boulder
20
90%
18

80% --------- - -1

16
~
I w 70% ~ 14 ~

c
60%
I
I
12 c
v

.J ~
v 50% ---- ------ --- ------ -- j 1Q °
o- 40% I I
1 I
8 d
~
30% I 1 6 "'
20%
I I
4

10% 1 I
I I
2

0% I 1
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution T ype
D16 12 mean 42.4 silUclay 0%
D35 36 dispersion 4.1 sand 1%
D50 73 skewness -0.23 gravel 43%
D65 99 cobble 55%
D84 150 boulder 1
D95 210

Sands
1 I i t _ Gravels _ _
. I i t ~ r Cobbles = Boulders --
l Bedrock

I ~ 1 1 1 1
I t V I I I
I I I I I`
) I I
i I 1 ~ I I I
I I i l l l ',
~ i I I V I I I

~ I I I I i l l l I I V I I I
'
- i I V I I I
i I ~ 1 1 1 1 1
1 I i l l l i t V I I I
I 1 1 I I ~ ! 1
i i i I 1 1 1
I I I 1 1 1 1 1
1 I I I I ~I i I I I I i i
I I I I I I i
.i 1 1 1 1 1
I V I I I I i I 1 1 1
I
1 I
I t I I 1 1
I 1 I I I 1 1 1
1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1
I I I V I I I I I I '~ 1 7
I I I i I 1
i I 1 1 1 1 1
I ( I I I I _
_
I I I I
I I _
I I ' 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 I I l t 1 I I!
I I ! 1 1 1 1 I I V I I I
i I I I I I!
' 1 ~ 11 1 1 I
' i '~ 1 1 1 1 1
_~_-,-_..'TTT
1 I I I I V I I I
! ~ ' I I I I
_ ~...~.. T..
'~ I I I I
_.r~-y - ~ I I I I
I I I I l
~_~...-
._._
-~~ I I
l i l
l_

-t-r..t.. 1 I ~ V I I I
i I i H i l l
'TTTT I I i 1 1 I l
i I I I i i I``~~II
?Try

-I--!-ti-t-rt~

I '. ( I I I I
I I I I I I '~ I I I I I I ! I I I I ! I ( I I I I

11
1--~--~-i-"
i t l l l l
~ ~ ~ I I I 1
~ . ( I
I I I
I I I H i l l i
1 I l l l l l~

T
co
U)
(D
ca -
E
cu
U)
co
9
Cl
CD
co
E
76
E
a)
>
fu LO
F --w
c
a)
p
a- m
0 �
LO
co
`�'J"�
E co r.-
Elo N
OEM
U)
(/) CD r--:
a) LO C,
Z Cj
C:
t!j cl) C6
C0 0
81� * 81� -I
CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C)
F 0 w I— w CD
ueqj JOUIA jugoiad

~~~~~
Smallest Sieve Weight Percent Stream: ~ t_ '
Passed mm oz % Item F iner Than Watershed:
<1 52 6.3% 6.3% Location:
1.0 46.5 5.7% 12.0% Note:
2.0 38.0 4.6% 16.7%
4.0 34.0 4.1% 20.8% B
lk S
l
S

8.0
43.0
5.2%
26.1 u
amp
e
ieve Analysis
16.0 74.0 9.0% 35.1
.5 532.0 64.9% 100.0% Sands
Gravels Cobbles
Boulders Bedrock
128
0 0
0 0
0% 100
0% 90% r __L ~--r-.~ I
~
~ I I I ', I 1 µ
.

256.0 .

0.0 .

0.0% .

100.0%

80%
°
I
I
~ 11 I I
- ~
~ ~

- -
~
~ I I I I I
a
I I I I I. I I I -,-~
I~ I I -I-rt ~ ,~----1--,- ,
I l l i l~ I I I 1 1

II
> 256.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0% L
~ 70% !
~ Lil~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I, I 1 , I
I I i
-...

Total:

819.5
°
100%
F

0°/p
I
__ _
-I
I I I I I

I I I 1 1

_
~
~. I I I

I I I
I I I I I I I

I , I i t 1
I I I

I i I I i I

I I I I I I I 1 I

1 I I I I~
C
LL
SO% I '.
I I I I I
V I I I
I I I I I I I
( I I I I I I 1 ICI I I
1 I I 1~ I I I ~
I I
I ': _
V I I I
I I I I I I ! I I I I)
I I I I I I

_
~

4Q%
I i
I
~ 1 1 1 1 1 1
~. I I I I I ~
I
I ~ I I I
I I I I I
I I 1 1 1 1 1
I ( I I I I
~ I I
I 1 I
I I I I I
'. I I I I .
I V I I I
'. ( I I I I
U
30% I I ~ I 1 1 1
I 1 1! I I ~ I I I I
11 1 i i I ', Ig I I 1~
I ' ! IS I l i 1 I I
I I I I I I
'~. I I I I ; - '. I I I I
'. 1 I 1~ I
d o
20 /° , ~ i I I I i. I I I I ', I~ I I I I ~ ~.. I V I I I ~ i I ( I I I I '~.

10% I I i. I I I I :; '. I~ 1 1 I I I I I I I I~ I ~ I ~
I I I I I , I I i I l

0% I I I I I I - • i 1 1 I '.. '. I I I I ~' I ~ i I I I I I I I ; I I I I ''
a
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) _
Cumulative Percent • Percent Item
Size erce nt less than mm Percent b subs trate t e
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
1.8 15.9 18.7 26.7 29.9 0% 17% 83% 0% --- ---

w
as

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: UTCC-DS (Crab Creek Site) Reach: Date: 4/24/07 Crew: AH
Bank Height (ft): Bank HeighU Root Depthl Root Bank Angle Surface
Bankfull Height (ft): Bankfull Ht Bank Height Density % (Degrees) Protection%
Value Range
°-------------- 1.0 1.1
------------------- 0.9 1.0
------------------- 80 100
------------------- 0.0 20.0
-------------------
--- 80
------------ 100
------
VERY LOW Index Range
•--------------- 1.0 1.9
------------------- 1.0 1.9
------------------- 1.0 1.9
------------------- 1.0 1.9
------°-----------
--- 1.0
------------ 1.9
------
Choice V: 1.0 I: 1.0 V: I: V: 80.0 I: 1.9 V: I: V: 100.0 I: 1.0
Value Range
•--------------- 1.11 1.19
------------------- 0.5 0.89
------------------- 55 79
------------------- 21.0 60.0
-------------------
---
------------ 79
------
LOW Index Range 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9
;; Choice V: I: V: 0.80 I: 2.4 V: I: V: 45.0 I: 3.2 V: I:
C
~;
Value Range
1.2 1.5
0.3
0:49
30
54
61.0 80.0
30
54

p
a
•---------------
MODERATE Index Range
-------------------
4.0 5.9 --_--_
--
------
4.0 5.9 __---_-
------ ---
4.0 5.9
-------------------
4.0 5.9 __- -__-_---
_
4.0 ---

5.9
~ Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: 1:
~~ Value Range 1.6 2.0 0.15
0.29 15 29 81.0 90.0 15 29

IL _
-
HIGH Index Range
-------------------
6.0 7.9 --
-----
-------
-- 6:0--__-__7_9--_
-------------------
6.0 7.9
-------------------
6.0 7.9
---
__- _---__--
----
6_0-__---- -__

7_9---
x
c Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: 1:
m Value Range 2.1
2.8 14
0.05
0 5
14 91.0 119.0 10 14
- ---
_
------------ -_
--
-__-_
_ --_---_-
----- ---
------------------- __- -__-__--
_ -__
VERY HIGH Index Range 8.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 9.0
Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I:
Value Range
•--------------- >2.8
------------------- <0.05
------------------- <5
------------------- >719
-------------------
--- <10
------------
------
EXTREME Index Range
°-------------- 10
------------------- 10
------------------- 10
------------------- 10
-------------------
--- 10
------------
------
Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I:
V = value, I =index SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from eac h column) 9.5

Bank Material Description: Bank Sketch
Consistent Layer
Bank Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
BANK MATERIAL ADJUSTMEN 5

Stratification Comments:
Stratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMEN

VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5-9.9 10-19.9 20-29.9 30-39.9 40-45.9 46-50
Ban k location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 14.5
BEHI RATING Low

,~;
C~
bA
O
'~
°~
bA
. ,..,
c~

Gauge 2 (XS-19) Rating Curve
2.00E+02
1.80E+02
1.60E+02
1.40E+02
a 1.20E+02
v
m
°1 1.00E+02
s
v
y
0 8.00E+01
6.00E+01
4.00E+01
2.00E+01
0.00E+00
Stage (ft)
Discharge (cfs) Poly. (Discharge (cfs))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Crab Creek Gauge 2
(XS-19) Discharge Hydrograph
12/12/06 to 02/16/07
200
180
160
140
120
m
100
t
0 80
60
40
20
0
~ ~ N N W U7

i
i
i
i ~
i I
L

n
O
n
O
n
O
n
O
n
O 7
~
v
O O O O O
-~ N
O (Jt O
L L L
N d N
7 7 7
i
O i
O i
O

Date
D Rainfall - Discharge
N W ~ Cfl ~
O ~.~ ~ A
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
7 ~ ~

O ~
O O
v O
v ~
O
v v v
3
2.5
2
c
1.5 ,~
c
.~
o!
1
0.5
0

Crab Creek Gauge 2
(XS-19) Discharge Hydrograph
02/16/07 to 04/24/07

35
30
25
20
m
R
s
y 15
0
10
5
0
1.2
1
0.8
c
0.6 ,~
c
.~
0.4
0.2
0
~ N N N V ~ ~ N N ~ O ~ ~ N N
1 1 1 1 ~ ~
CTi O U~ ~ ~ N ~l N ~I D D 1 ~ 1 1
~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -a -o D D D D
m m m ~ ~ v v v v ~ ~ -a -a -a a
~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ° 0 0 0 0
O O O V V O O O O V V V V
V V V V V V V
Date
D Rainfall - Discharge

Discharge (cfs)
O N ~. O pp
LO-~db'-£Z
LO-~dy-9Z
LO-~db'-6Z
LO-~eW-Z
LO-~(eW-5
LO-~eW-g
LO-~eW- L l•
LO-~(eW-b ~
LO-~eW-L L
LO-~eW-OZ
v
o
LO-~eW-£Z
0
~. LO-~eW-9Z
v
c~
`D LO-~eW-6Z
LO-u n~- ~
LO-un£-~
LO-u n ~-L
LO-unf`06
LO-unf -£4
LO-unf-9L
LO-unf-66
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
iv w ~ in b~ ~ bo co
Rainfall (in)
.~
X
N
o ~ C7
~ v ~
N ~ ~
~ N
o ~ C1
y ~ ~
o ~ ~
o ~ ~
~ _
a Q' ~
V ~ N
c~

G~
G~
Q
U
~C c~
~ ~
'~
N
~-+ U
N

Stream ID 12
Strearre Name Last Cove Creek
Contact Dan Clinton

Organization __ _ _
` ~CSU~~ ~ __~~
Email [e-mail]
'Date Surireyed; 6/8/1998

. , - Location
River Basin Catawba -----~----'-)
8-d~g~t HUC -; 03051}l0i
~~ . .
Location own of Edgemont, NC, within Pisgah
National Forest

-Reach .. _ ____
Description,

State NC _
Latitude ~ (decimal degrees)
Longitude ~:(decimat degrees)
County . Avery....:....
Physio: Region` -Mountain ~ (coast, Piedmont, mtns]
Ecoregion , , -C~
Public/Private ~..
-Right of Entry © (check for yes)
USGS Quad , "Grandfather M~
:Hydraulics
Bankfuil.Discharge - {cfs)
Bankfult Velocity ,--~~--- --~ (ft/s)
Manning's n , ~~
Method'of Calculating ~ ~
Manr~i;ng's n
:: _ j
~ j .
I

Channef`Materials
:Percent5ilt/clay,. ~ 0%
;.
Percent Sand
8
Percent Grevel. ~~^` 5%
.,Percent Cobble- ~ 48°l0
Percent Boulder. ~--- ~- i8%~
Percent Bedrock I 11%j
D16 ~- 1.9 (mm)
D35 ~` ~~ .(mm) .
D50 - 144 (mm) : <.
D84 _ j - 512 (mm)
D95 --- ---- ~ (tnm)
Note: 2,049 mm corresponds to BEDROCK

i / , , , ~ , , , , / , , , , , , / , , / / / / / , , , , / / ,

• LgiCani. Pau h, NCDOT>,
g
IRefer-enC@"Re'+aCh '®a"taf3~$e .:: :.(919);733.1194: ":
,.: .. _ Ipaugh~doYState.nc.us

Data Standards :.
No survey data: provided - ^ No material analysis pt'ovtded .. ^

_..
No pattern data provided ...

~ Data do-riot align with regional curve- - ^
.
No profile:data.provided ^ No location information provided ^
No hydraulics data provided ~

- - Description. ; ,
Rosgen Stream Type
- rrC3 Soils Type
L~_ ;_~~_-_ _--- E
.,
Reach Length
_,
1,034 (~~ '- ,BEHI Score:,
..
Watershed Drainage Area 24.80] (sq. mi) Avg Water,Surface Slope _j^ 0.0088:
Watershed % Impervious ~ Valley Slope - 0.0084 ,
Valley Type ®, {C- coiluvial or A- alluvial). Valley Length ;~~ i (ft)
Land Use ~ _(U- urban or R- rttrel) Sintaosity 1 1.20€
5ife Description Within Pisgah National Forest DWQ Index No.. ji1- 4 I -~~
DWQ Reference Reach ^- (check.for yes.)
DWQ Benthtc Monitoring ^` (check for yes)

Description of any j.

Associated. Wetlands

.:. .

i
I

~. .. ..

Description of, , , I
Dense shrub and deciduous vegetation line banks and adjacent hillslopes ~.
Vegetative Communities ;
j
l

Watershed Description , - Entirely within National Forest boundaries '
~,

j 5-t-60-~ Roal ~"^ 59.5 ~ " 4 2'.~.. .. 251.2:--- . .. .. . 7.7 ~-

i
i
•
•
•
i
i
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
f
•
i
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

• Appendix I
•
•
• Detailed Soils Investigation and Mapping for the
~ Crab Creek Site
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Detailed Soils Investigation and Mapping for the Crab Creek Site
In December 2006, KCI completed a detailed soils investigation at the Crab Creek Site in Alleghany
- County, North Carolina. The results of this investigation are described below and displayed in the
- following figure (Soil Investigation Map).
For at least the past 50 years, the soils at the Crab Creek Site have undergone varying degrees of
- anthropogenic modifications. In particular, the soils in cleared areas have been altered by sediment
deposition from frequent overwash, channelization and aditch/spoil drainage system to prepare the land
for pasture and cultivation. Primarily, the ditch/spoil drainage system effectively captures hydrologic
- inputs from adjacent properties and conveys it to an unnamed tributary to Crab Creek (UTCC). The
- hydrologic inputs to these man-made channels produce continual flow onto the site throughout the year in
such quantity as to produce jurisdictional wetlands on the ditch bottoms of the drainage system. KCI
plans to abandon these ditches to restore hydrology to drained wetlands. In addition, UTCC will be
- restored and the excavated spoil removed from the cultivated areas.
The Alleghany County Soil Survey has classified the soils within the floodplain areas of the site as
• predominately Alluvial Land, Wet. Based on field results, KCI has remapped and reclassified the primary
- soil as the Nikwasi Series (Coarse-loamy over sandy or sandy skeletal, mixed, superactive, nonacid,
mesic Cumulic Humaquepts). Inclusions of Toxaway Series (Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, nonacid,
mesic Cumulic Humaquepts) were also identified along the outer edges of the floodplain away from
- UTCC. In contrast to the Nikwasi series, the Toxaway inclusions are typically finer soils with a Cg
horizon containing less than 35 percent coarse fragments within 40 inches below the surface. These
inclusions into the Nikwasi series likely represent less than 20 percent of the hydric soils on the site. The
- Nikwasi and Toxaway series are listed as hydric soils due to saturation for a significant period during the
- growing season and are in accordance with the federal and state hydric soils list. Since neither soil was
mapped in Alleghany County, the NRCS has not included them on the hydric soils list for the county.
- In disturbed areas, the existing soil is classified as a Nikwasi variant, because of the ditch spoiUfills from
man-made alterations and sediment deposition from frequent overwash. Some pedons in the disturbed
areas have recent layers of overburden/spoiUfill up to 24 inches thick that are loamy and variable in color
- and fall outside the range of characteristics for the Ap and A horizons of the Nikwasi series.
The reclassification of the soils is based on our findings obtained from a detailed soils investigation at the
- site. This detailed soils investigation was conducted by augering numerous soil borings across the site,
- classifying the soils in accordance with soil taxonomy, and delineating two soil mapping units on a 2005
aerial photograph. The primary difference between the two soil mapping units is that one mapping unit
has 18-24 inches fill or overburden applied to the surface and the other mapping unit has not been filled.
- To verify the purity of the soil mapping units, additional auger borings were advanced on-site and two
representative soil descriptions, one from each mapping unit, were prepared describing the vertical soil
profiles (see Soil Investigation Map). Soil boring #19 is representative of the more natural soils while soil
- boring C (located downstream of the culvert) has been altered by filling. The asterisk shown on the soil
• description indicates the altered horizons. These soil profile descriptions fall within the range of
characteristics of the Nikwasi series.
- The Nikwasi series consists of poorly drained and very poorly drained, moderately rapidly permeable
soils on floodplains in the Blue Ridge. These soils formed in recent alluvium consisting of loamy material
that is moderately deep to strata of sand, gravel, and /or cobbles. These soils are often mapped as hydric
• inclusions within better drained soils that are very frequently flooded. A typical soil profile description is
- as follows:

Typical Soil Pedon
A - 0-8 inches, very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) fine sandy loam, dark grayish brown (1 OYR 4/2) dry;
moderate fine granular structure; very friable; common fine roots; few rounded gravel; common fine and -
medium flakes of mica; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary.
-
A - 8-26 inches, very dark gray (1 OYR 3/ 1) fine sandy loam, dark gray (1 OYR 4/ 1) dry; weak medium
granular structure; very friable; common fine roots; few rounded gravel; common fine and medium flakes .
of mica; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of the A subhorizons is 24 to 35
inches). -
Cg - 26-60 inches, dark grayish brown (lOYR 4/2) and multicolored extremely gravelly coarse sand; -
single grained; loose dominantly water worn gravel with cobbles; common fine and medium flakes of
mica; moderately acid. -
Range of Characteristics
The range of characteristics of the A horizon has a hue of 2.SY or lOYR, a value of 2 or 3, and a chroma
ranging from 1 to 3 or it is neutral with a value of 2 or 3. It is fine sandy loam, sandy loam, or loam in the -
fine earth fraction.
The AC horizon, where present, has colors similar to the A horizon. It is loamy sand, loamy fine sand,
loamy coarse sand, sand, or coarse sand in the fine earth fraction.
Steven F. Stokes, LSS
Licensed Soil Scientist

•
~~~
.~.~^
~r~
~~
I SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Client: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Date: 12/20/2006
Project: UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site Project #: 12053743H
County: Alleghany State: NC
Location: Site/Lot: Soil boring # 19
Soil Series: Nikwasi (Unaltered)
Soil Classification: Coarse-loamy over sandy-skeletal mixed superactive, nonacid, mesic Cumulic Humaquepts
AWT: 6" SHWT: 0-12" Slope: 0-3% Infiltration: very slow to ponded runoff
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly and very poorly drained Permeability: moderately rapid
Vegetation: Weedy, first year successional
Borings terminated at 41 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH(IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES
A 0-15 10YR2/2 fsl 2f ve friable cw
A 15-28 10YR2/2 sl 1 f ve friable cs
C 1 28-40 lOYR 3/1 is s loose cs com act structure in
lace, but loose when
removed.
C 2 40-41 l OYR 3/1 s s to strop 1 cemented sand and waterworn
structureless avels and/or cobbles

COMMENTS:
Auger refusal on cobbles at 41 inches.
DESCRIBED BY:
DATE:

11 ~ 1 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Client: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Date: 12/20/2006
Project: UT to Crab Creek Restoration Site Project #: 12053743H
County: Alleghany State: NC
Location: Site/Lot: Soil boring C (downstream of culvert)
Soil Series: Nikwasi variant (Altered)
Soil Classification: Coarse-loamy over sandy-skeletal, mixed superactive nonacid mesic Cumulic Humaquepts
AWT: 20 SHWT: >12 Slope: 0-3% Infiltration: very slow to ponded runoff
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly and very poorly drained Permeability: moderately rapid
Vegetation: Fescue
Borings terminated at 44 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH(IN) MATRLX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE BOUNDARY NOTES
*A 0-12 l OYR 4/6 is-s s loose ab Fill
*A 12-24 1 OYR 4/6 l OYR 2/2 is-s s loose ab Fill-mixed soils
Ab 24-32 lOYR 2/2 fsl 2f ve friable cw buried horizon
C 1 32-44 l OYR 2/2 cos s loose cs com act structure in
lace, but loose when
removed.
C 2 44 stron 1 cemented Au er refusal,
avel and/or cobbles

COMMENTS:
Auger refusal on gravels or cobbles at 44 inches.
Spoil likely placed on pasture after creek straightened
Asterisks indicate altered horizons
DESCRIBED BY: DATE:

4 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~~.~
-.~ ~ „

~~+~ Soil Investigation Map
Project Boundary ~/ Project Streams (Existing)
~ Soil Boring Locations ~ Wetland (Existing)
`*' Representative Soil Descriptions
Mapped Hydric Soils „~E
Disturbed Hydric Soils i:2,aoo
ASSOCIATES OF NC Within 18-24" Overburde~l ~ ~„cn equals zoo fees
zoo ioo o zoo
Gunge Snurze-:.4/]rgl,um- Coun+v GIS, Onhoimagen ?oos Feet
r~
,F~cos~stelYl
Il 1 X11 'eIl
Prxorua.,

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••i••••••

~ ~
bd ,.~
~
~ ~
~

~ ~.
~
~ ~

~.

Crab Creek -Existing Conditions (Wetland #1)
D Year Water In uts Water Out uts Change in Excess Wetland
1988 P Si * Gt PET So Go Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 1.42 0.04 0.25 0.00 0.29 0.00 2.02 -0.60 0.00 0.00
February 2.03 0.09 0.25 0.08 0.34 0.00 1.27 0.68 0.00 0.68
March 1.29 0.00 0.25 0.92 0.25 0.00 0.61 -0.24 0.00 0.44
April 4.18 0.38 0.25 1.97 0.63 0.00 2.58 -0.37 0.00 0.07
May 3.28 0.56 0.25 2.81 0.81 0.00 0.82 -0.35 0.00 0.00
June 2.77 0.04 0.25 4.10 0.29 0.00 0.52 -1.85 0.00 0.00
July 2.90 0.06 0.25 4.79 0.31 0.00 0.00 -1.89 0.00 0.00
August 2.98 0.18 0.25 4.78 0.43 0.00 0.00 -1.80 0.00 0.00
September 3.25 0.20 0.25 3.23 0.45 0.00 2.95 -2.94 0.00 0.00
October 1.60 0.06 0.25 1.27 0.31 0.00 1.16 -0.83 0.00 0.00
November 5.50 1.03 0.25 0.85 1.28 0.00 4.48 0.17 0.00 0.17
December 1.63 0.00 0.25 0.17 0.25 0.00 1.42 0.04 0.00 0.22
Annual Totals 32.83 2.64 3.00 24-97 5.64 0.00 17.82
Av .Year Water In uts Water Out UtS Change in Excess Wetland
1966 P SI * Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 4.16 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.00 3.53 0.63 0.00 0.63
February 6.92 1.67 0.25 0.04 1.92 0.00 5.84 1.04 0.00 1.67
March 1.70 0.09 0.25 0.87 0.34 0.00 1.67 -0.84 0.00 0.83
April 3.41 0.13 0.25 1.79 0.38 0.00 1.49 0.13 0.00 0.95
May 4.03 0.11 0.25 3.16 0.36 0.00 1.88 -1.01 0.00 0.00
June 2.33 0.03 0.25 4.04 0.28 0.00 1.26 -2.97 0.00 0.00
July 3.34 0.49 0.25 4.81 0.74 0.00 0.00 -1.47 0.00 0.00
August 4.97 0.35 0.25 4.25 0.60 0.00 0.77 -0.04 0.00 0.00
September 6.76 2.48 0.25 2.97 2.73 0.00 5.11 -1.32 0.00 0.00
October 4.54 1.35 0.25 1.65 1.60 0.00 3.31 -0.42 0.00 0.00
November 4.48 0.94 0.25 0.85 1.19 0.00 4.04 -0.41 0.00 0.00
December 3.85 0.37 0.25 0.15 0.62 0.00 3.82 -0.12 0.00 0.00
Annual Totals 50.49 8.27 3.00 24.58 11.27 0.00 32.72
Wet Year Water In uts Water Out UfS Change in Excess Wetland
1989 P Si * Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 2.26 0.00 0.25 0.40 0.25 0.00 2.59 -0.73 0.00 0.00
February 3.04 0.00 0.25 0.29 0.25 0.00 1.68 1.08 0.00 1.08
March 3.82 0.19 0.25 1.16 0.44 0.00 3.10 -0.44 0.00 0.63
April 2.6 0.00 0.25 1.81 0.25 0.00 0.36 0.44 0.00 1.07
May 5.38 0.76 0.25 2.68 1.01 0.00 3.15 -0.45 0.00 0.62
June 8.75 1.28 0.25 4.51 1.53 0.00 3.06 1.18 0.00 1.80
July 13.61 4.11 0.25 4.78 4.36 0.00 6.96 1.87 0.00 3.67
August 6.29 2.20 0.25 4.34 2.45 0.00 0.09 1.86 0.85 4.68
September 14.02 4.87 0.25 3.29 5.12 0.00 5.53 5.20 5.20 4.68
October 5.49 1.23 0.25 2.02 1.48 0.00 4.53 -1.05 0.00 3.63
November 8.98 5.02 0.25 0.64 5.27 0.00 4.72 3.62 2.56 4.68
December 2.04 0.08 0.25 0.00 0.33 0.00 2.65 -0.61 0.00 4.07
Annual Totals 76.28 19.74 3.00 25.92 22.74 0.00 38.41

Water Budget
Existing Conditions
Wetland #1
6 ~...._ _ _ _.._.. _. .-__ . - . _ ._ ~TT _.._ _ __ -
Grawing Season
May 2 - octaber 6
5 _ _
4.68" Maximum Capacity
! ~ ~'
/ ~ f `~
/ \ ~ ~
^ 4 ~
/ \
c *' ~
_. ~
d
E ~
~ /
d ~
a ~
3 I
a ~
c
r
~ 2 ~
~' 12" Below
~ Ground Surface
~ /
/. ~
~ ~,
~ '~" ~_r..~-~ ~_-~ -,----~-ITT--
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
4.68 in. - Maximum
Capacity
1.6 in. -Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
- -*~~ Dry Year (1988)
- - f Average Year (1966)
- ~ - Wet Year (1989)
I

t'_rah [`r'PPIt _ PrnnncpttY ('_nnr~il'innc /WPtland #11
D Year W ater In uts Water Out uts Change in Excess wetland
1988 P Si' GI PET So Go Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 1.42 0.04 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.02 -0.30 0.00 0.00
February 2.03 0.09 0.25 0.08 0.00 0.00 1.27 1.02 0.00 1.02
March 1.29 0.00 0.25 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.01 0.00 1.03
April 4.18 0.38 0.25 1.97 0.00 0.00 2.58 0.25 0.00 1.29
May 3.28 0.56 0.25 2.81 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.46 0.00 1.74
June 2.77 0.04 0.25 4.10 0.00 0.00 0.52 -1.56 0.00 0.18
July 2.90 0.06 0.25 4.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.58 0.00 0.00
August 2.98 0.18 0.25 4.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.37 0.00 0.00
September 3.25 0.20 0.25 3.23 0.00 0.00 2.95 -2.49 0.00 0.00
October 1.60 0.06 0.25 1.27 0.00 0.00 1.16 -0.51 0.00 0.00
November 5.50 1.03 0.25 0.85 0.00 0.00 4.49 1.44 0.00 1.44
December 1.63 0.00 0.25 0.17 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.30 0.00 1.74
Annual Total 32.83 2.64 3.00 24,97 0.00 0.00 17.83
Av .Year Water In uts Water Out uts Change in Excess Wetland
1966 P Si' GI PET So Go Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 4.16 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.54 1.12 0.00 1.12
February 6.92 1.67 0.25 0.04 0.00 0.00 6.85 1.95 0.00 3.07
March 1.70 0.09 0.25 0.87 0.00 0.00 1.66 -0.48 0.00 2.59
April 3.41 0.13 0.25 1.79 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.50 0.00 3.09
May 4.03 0.11 0.25 3.16 0.00 0.00 1.88 -0.66 0.00 2.43
June 2.33 0.03 0.25 4.04 0.00 0.00 1.25 -2.68 0.00 0.00
July 3.34 0.49 0.25 4.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.74 0.00 0.00
August 4.97 0.35 0.25 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.56 0.00 0.56
September 6.76 2.48 0.25 2.97 0.00 0.00 6.10 0.42 0.00 0.98
October 4.54 1.35 0.25 1.65 0.00 0.00 3.31 1.18 0.00 2.16
November 4.48 0.94 0.25 0.85 0.00 0.00 4.05 0.76 0.00 2.92
December 3.85 0.37 0.25 0.15 0.00 0.00 3.82 0.51 0.00 3.43
Annual Total 50.49 8.27 3.00 24.58 0.00 0.00 34.74
Wet Year W aterlnputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1989 P Si' GI PET So Go Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 2.26 0.00 0.25 0.40 0.00 0.00 2.59 -0.48 0.00 0.00
February 3.04 0.00 0.25 0.29 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.31 0.00 7.31
March 3.82 0.19 0.25 1.16 0.00 0.00 3.09 0.00 0.00 1.32
April 2.6 0.00 0.25 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.69 0.00 2.01
May 5.38 0.76 0.25 2.68 0.00 0.00 3.15 0.56 0.00 2.57
June 8.75 1.28 0.25 4.51 0.00 0.00 3.07 2.70 0.59 4.68
July 13.61 4.11 0.25 4.78 0.00 0.00 7.94 5.24 5.24 4.68
August 6.29 2.20 0.25 4.34 0.00 0.00 0.09 4.31 4.31 4.68
September 14.02 4.87 0.25 3.29 0.00 0.00 6.54 9.31 9.31 4.68
October 5.49 1.23 0.25 2.02 0.00 0.00 4.53 0.43 0.43 4.68
November 8.98 5.02 0.25 0.64 0.00 0.00 5.71 7.89 7.89 4.68
December 2.04 0.08 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.64 -0.27 0.00 4.41
Annual Total 76.28 79.74 3.00 25.92 0.00 0.00 41.41

6
5
u- 4
d
t
v
c
d
E
> 3
w
ea
.a
c
ca
d
~ 2
1
0
Water Budget
Proposed Conditions
Wetland #1
Growing Season
May 2 -October 6
4.68" Maximum Capacity
r
/ ~ r
/ ^
^ • ~- _
' - i
f
~~
_ 12" Below
i ~ 'a Ground Surfaces
^ ~ =
/ ,. ,
//r ~,
~, ,.
r ._
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
4.68 in. - Maximum
Capacity
1.6 in. -Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
-~ °*~ Dry Year (1988)
- • f - Average Year (1966)
- •~ - Wet Year (1989)

Crab Creek - Existing Conditions /Wetland #2l
D Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1988 P Si ` Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 1.42 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.79 0.00 2.02 -0.60 0.00 0.00
February 2.03 0.09 0.75 0.08 0.84 0.00 1.27 0.68 0.00 0.68
March 1.29 0.00 0.75 0.92 0.75 0.00 0.61 -0.24 0.00 0.44
April 4.18 0.38 0.75 1.97 1.13 0.00 2.58 -0.37 0.00 0.07
May 3.28 0.56 0.75 2.81 1.31 0.00 0.82 -0.36 0.00 0.00
June 2.77 0.04 0.75 4.10 0.79 0.00 0.52 -1.85 0.00 0.00
July 2.90 0.06 0.75 4.79 0.81 0.00 0.00 -1.89 0.00 0.00
August 2.98 0.18 0.75 4.78 0.93 0.00 0.00 -1.80 0.00 0.00
September 3.25 0.20 0.75 3.23 0.95 0.00 2.95 -2.94 0.00 0.00
October 1.60 0.06 0.75 1.27 0.81 0.00 1.16 -0.83 0.00 0.00
November 5.50 1.03 0.75 0.85 1.78 0.00 4.48 0.17 0.00 0.17
December 1.63 0.00 0.75 0.17 0.75 0.00 1.41 0.05 0.00 0.21
Annual Totals
Av .Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1968 P Si ` Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 4.16 0.25 0.75 0.00 1.00 0.00 3.54 0.62 0.00 0.62
February 6.92 1.67 0.75 0.04 2.42 0.00 5.86 1.01 0.00 1.63
March 1.70 0.09 0.75 0.87 0.84 0.00 1.66 -0.83 0.00 0.81
April 3.41 0.13 0.75 1.79 0.88 0.00 1.50 0.12 0.00 0.92
May 4.03 0.11 0.75 3.16 0.86 0.00 1.88 -1.01 0.00 0.00
June 2.33 0.03 0.75 4.04 0.78 0.00 1.25 -2.96 0.00 0.00
July 3.34 0.49 0.75 4.81 1.24 0.00 0.00 -1.47 0.00 0.00
August 4.97 0.35 0.75 4.25 1.10 0.00 0.77 -0.04 0.00 0.00
September 6.76 2.48 0.75 2.97 3.23 0.00 5.11 -1.33 0.00 0.00
October 4.54 1.35 0.75 1.65 2.10 0.00 3.31 -0.42 0.00 0.00
November 4.48 0.94 0.75 0.85 1.69 0.00 4.05 -0.42 0.00 0.00
December 3.85 0.37 0.75 0.15 1.12 0.00 3.82 -0.12 0.00 0.00
Annual Totals St? au u 2T 0 04 74 5H 0 t10 3a t6
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1989 P Si' Gi PET So Go Loss to DitcheslStream Storage Water Volume
January 2.26 0.00 0.75 0.40 0.75 0.00 2.59 -0.73 0.00 0.00
February 3.04 0.00 0.75 0.29 0.75 0.00 1.69 1.07 0.00 1.07
March 3.82 0.19 0.75 1.16 0.94 0.00 3.09 -0.44 0.00 0.63
April 2.6 0.00 0.75 1.81 0.75 0.00 0.35 0.44 0.00 1.07
May 5.38 0.76 0.75 2.68 1.51 0.00 3.15 -0.45 0.00 0.62
June 8.75 1.28 0.75 4.51 2.03 0.00 3.07 1.17 0.00 1.79
July 13.61 4.11 0.75 4.78 4.86 0.00 6.96 1.86 0.00 3.66
August 6.29 2.20 0.75 4.34 2.95 0.00 0.09 1.86 0.84 4.68
September 14.02 4.87 0.75 3.29 5.62 0.00 5.55 5.18 5.18 4.68
October 5.49 1.23 0.75 2.02 1.98 0.00 4.53 -1.05 0.00 3.63
November 8.98 5.02 0.75 0.64 5.77 0.00 4.73 3.61 2.56 4.68
December 2.04 0.08 0.75 0.00 0.83 0.00 2.65 -0.61 0.00 4 07
Annual Totals 76.28 19.74 0.00 25.92 28.74 0.00 38.45
i
•
•
s

Water Budget
Existing Conditions
Wetland #2
6
5
y 4
d
v
c
d
E
0
> 3
L
W
lC
c
co
w
d
3 2
1
0
4.68 in. - Maximum
Capacity
1.6 in. -Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
Dry Year (1988)
- • f Average Year (1966)
- -~ - Wet Year (1989)
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Crab Creek -Proposed Conditions fWPtlanri #71
D Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1988 P Si * Gi PET So Go Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 1.42 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.13 0.08 0.00 0.08
February 2.03 0.09 0.75 0.08 0.00 0.00 1.27 1.52 0.00 1.60
March 1.29 0.00 0.75 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.53 0.00 2.13
April 4.18 0.38 0.75 1.97 0.00 0.00 2.54 0.79 0.00 2.92
May 3.28 0.56 0.75 2.81 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.99 0.00 3.91
June 2.77 0.04 0.75 4.10 0.00 0.00 0.52 -1.07 0.00 2.84
July 2.90 0.06 0.75 4.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.08 0.00 1.76
August 2.98 0.18 0.75 4.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.87 0.00 0.89
September 3.25 0.20 0.75 3.23 0.00 0.00 2.93 -1.96 0.00 0.00
October 1.60 0.06 0.75 1.27 0.00 0.00 1.26 -0.12 0.00 0.00
November 5.50 1.03 0.75 0.85 0.00 0.00 4.27 2.16 0.00 2.16
December 1.63 0.00 0.75 0.17 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.71 0.00 2.86
Annual Totals
Av .Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1966 P Si * Gi PET So Go Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 4.16 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.40 1.77 0.00 1.77
February 6.92 1.67 0.75 0.04 0.00 0.00 6.55 2.75 0.00 4.52
March 1.70 0.09 0.75 0.87 0.00 0.00 1.80 -0.12 0.00 4.39
April 3.41 0.13 0.75 1.79 0.00 0.00 1.35 1.15 0.86 4.68
May 4.03 0.11 0.75 3.16 0.00 0.00 1.93 -0.20 0.00 4.48
June 2.33 0.03 0.75 4.04 0.00 0.00 1.29 -2.22 0.00 2.26
July 3.34 0.49 0.75 4.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.24 0.00 2.02
August 4.97 0.35 0.75 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.80 1.02 0.00 3.04
September 6.76 2.48 0.75 2.97 0.00 0.00 5.96 1.07 0.00 4.11
October 4.54 1.35 0.75 1.65 0.00 0.00 3.35 1.64 1.07 4.68
November 4.48 0.94 0.75 0.85 0.00 0.00 3.78 1.53 1.53 4.68
December 3.85 0.37 0.75 0.15 0.00 0.00 3.86 0
.96 0.96 4.68
Annual Totals 50 49 8 ti 2q 58 p tj~y p G~7 _
e
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1989 P Si * Gi PET So Go Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 2.26 0.00 0.75 0.40 0.00 0.00 2.70 -0.10 0.00 0.00
February 3.04 0.00 0.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 1.55 1.96 0.00 1.96
March 3.82 0.19 0.75 1.16 0.00 0.00 3.13 0.46 0.00 2.42
April 2.6 0.00 0.75 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.43 1.11 0.00 3.53
May 5.38 0.76 0.75 2.68 0.00 0.00 3.15 1.07 0.00 4.60
June 8.75 1.28 0.75 4.51 0.00 0.00 2.94 3.33 3.24 4.68
July 13.61 4.11 0.75 4.78 0.00 0.00 7.79 5.89 5.89 4.68
August 6.29 2.20 0.75 4.34 0.00 0.00 0.17 4.73 4.73 4.68
September 14.02 4.87 0.75 3.29 0.00 0.00 6.12 10.23 10.23 4.68
October 5.49 1.23 0.75 2.02 0.00 0.00 4.60 0.86 0.86 4.68
November 8.98 5.02 0.75 0.64 0.00 0.00 5.69 8.42 8.42 4.68
December 2.04 0.08 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.19 0.19 4.68
Annual Totals 76.28 19.74 9.00 25.92 0.00 0.00 40.96
i
•
•
•
i
•
•
i

•t~~~~~tt~~~~~t~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~t~~~•
Water Budget
Proposed Conditions
Wetland #2
6
5
rn 4
m
t
v
c
m
E
0
> 3
L
'~
c
~o
~ 2
1

Growing Season
May 2 -October 6
4.68" Maximum Capacity
~'- ~ ~ / - -
f _
~ .,
-- /~ ~Q.
1" r `~ ,~,
~~
`'
~ ~
,~ ~
~ ~ * ~ ~ ,,
~ 12" Below
~ ~ ~ Ground Surface
i ~~.
/,
/,
/:
4
P
d
r
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
4.68 in. - Maximum
Capacity
1.6 in. -Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
- + Dry Year (1988)
- - i Average Year (1966)
- ~ - Wet Year (1989)

Crab Creek - Existina Conditions (Wetland #31
D Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1988 P Si' Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 1.42 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.54 0.00 2.08 -0.66 0.00 0.00
February 2.03 0.09 0.50 0.08 0.59 0.00 9.13 -7.18 0.00 0.00
March 1.29 0.00 0.50 0.92 0.50 0.00 0.60 -0.23 0.00 0.00
April 4.18 0.38 0.50 1.97 0.88 0.00 2.56 -0.35 0.00 0.00
May 3.28 0.56 0.50 2.81 1.06 0.00 0.80 -0.33 0.00 0.00
June 2.77 0.04 0.50 4.10 0.54 0.00 0.53 -1.86 0.00 0.00
July 2.90 0.06 0.50 4.79 0.56 0.00 0.00 -1.89 0.00 0.00
August 2.98 0.18 0.50 4.78 0.68 0.00 0.00 -1.80 0.00 0.00
September 3.25 0.20 0.50 3.23 0.70 0.00 2.97 -2.95 0.00 0.00
October 1.60 0.06 0.50 1.27 0.56 0.00 1.19 -0.85 0.00 0.00
November 5.50 1.03 0.50 0.85 1.53 0.00 4.34 0.31 0.00 0.31
December 1.63 0.00 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.00 1.48 -0.02 0.00 0.29
Annual Totals
Av .Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1966 P Si' Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 4.16 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.75 0.00 3.45 0.71 0.00 0.71
February 6.92 1.67 0.50 0.04 2.17 0.00 6.98 -0.10 0.00 0.61
March 1.70 0.09 0.50 0.87 0.59 0.00 1.76 -0.93 0.00 0.00
April 3.41 0.13 0.50 1.79 0.63 0.00 1.39 0.23 0.00 0.23
May 4.03 0.11 0.50 3.16 0.61 0.00 1.91 -1.04 0.00 0.00
June 2.33 0.03 0.50 4.04 0.53 0.00 1.28 -2.99 0.00 0.00
July 3.34 0.49 0.50 4.81 0.99 0.00 0.00 -1.48 0.00 0.00
August 4.97 0.35 0.50 4.25 0.85 0.00 0.79 -0.06 0.00 0.00
September 6.76 2.48 0.50 2.97 2.98 0.00 6.35 -2.56 0.00 0.00
October 4.54 1.35 0.50 1.65 1.85 0.00 3.33 -0.44 0.00 0.00
November 4.48 0.94 0.50 0.85 1.44 0.00 3.86 -0.23 0.00 0.00
December 3.85 0.37 0.50 0.15 0.87 0.00 3.86 -0.16 0.00 0.00
Annual Totals 50 49 8 1'i 5 00 24 58 i a z r 0 OU f4 9 i
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1989 P Si' Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 2.26 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.00 2.66 -0.80 0.00 0.00
February 3.04 0.00 0.50 0.29 0.50 0.00 1.59 1.17 0.00 1.17
March 3.82 0.19 0.50 1.16 0.69 0.00 3.13 -0.48 0.00 0.69
April 2.6 0.00 0.50 1.81 0.50 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 1.09
May 5.38 0.76 0.50 2.68 1.26 0.00 3.16 -0.46 0.00 0.63
June 8.75 1.28 0.50 4.51 1.78 0.00 2.97 1.27 0.00 1.90
July 13.61 4.11 0.50 4.78 4.61 0.00 8.50 0.33 0.00 2.23
August 6.29 2.20 0.50 4.34 2.70 0.00 0.13 1.82 0.00 4.05
September 14.02 4.87 0.50 3.29 5.37 0.00 6.92 3.81 3.18 4.68
October 5.49 1.23 0.50 2.02 1.73 0.00 4.60 -1.13 0.00 3.55
November 8.98 5.02 0.50 0.64 5.52 0.00 6.31 2.03 0.90 4.68
December 2.04 0.08 0.50 0.00 0.58 0.00 2.66 -0.62 0.00 4.06
Annual Totals 76.28 19.74 6.00 25.92 25.74 0.00 43.02

•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Water Budget
Existing Conditions
Wetland #3

g _-~n_~_~~ -
Growing Season
May 2 -October 6
5
4.68" Maximum Capacity
e'
,,
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
~ r
y
w 4 _ _
r ~ \ ~
~ ~ 0 ~
- / r
E ~
r

L /
d
~
~
~ ~
-8 /
c
r
m
~
i
_ -
-
T
2 -.- _ ___ _ -- _ --
- - ---
-
~
~ 12" Below
~ Ground Surface

1

/ ~ ~ ~ `~
~
^_e_
r
~
~
r--~ ~

~ *e.__-•

Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
4.68 in. - Maximum
Capacity
1.6 in. -Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
~ Dry Year (1988)
• • f Average Year (1966)
- ,- - Wet Year (1989)

Crab Creek -Proposed Conditions (Wetland #31
D Year Water Inputs Water Outputs change in Excess Wetland
1988 P Si' Gi PET So Go loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 1.42 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.06 -0.10 0.00 0.00
February 2.03 0.09 0.50 0.08 0.00 0.00 1.26 1.28 0.00 1.28
March 1.29 0.00 0.50 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.27 0.00 1.55
April 4.18 0.38 0.50 1.97 0.00 0.00 2.56 0.52 0.00 2.07
May 3.28 0.56 0.50 2.81 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.73 0.00 2.80
June 2.77 0.04 0.50 4.10 0.00 0.00 0.54 -1.33 0.00 1.47
July 2.90 0.06 0.50 4.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.33 0.00 0.14
August 2.98 0.18 0.50 4.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.12 0.00 0.00
September 3.25 0.20 0.50 3.23 0.00 0.00 2.96 -2.25 0.00 0.00
October 1.60 0.06 0.50 1.27 0.00 0.00 1.18 -0.29 0.00 0 "i
November 5.50 1.03 0.50 0.85 0.00 D.00 4.38 1.80 0.00 16;i
December 1.63 0.00 0.50 0.17 0.00 0.00 1 46 0 50 0.00
Annual Totals j ~
Av .Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1968 P Si * Gi PET So Go Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 4.16 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 1.44 0.00 1.44
February 6.92 1.67 0.50 0.04 0.00 0.00 6.98 2.07 0.00 3.51
March 1.70 0.09 0.50 0.87 0.00 0.00 1.74 -0.32 0.00 3.20
April 3.41 0.13 0.50 1.79 0.00 0.00 1.42 0.83 0.00 4.03
May 4.03 0.11 0.50 3.16 0.00 0.00 1.90 -0.42 0.00 3.61
June 2.33 0.03 0.50 4.04 0.00 0.00 1.28 -2.46 0.00 1.15
July 3.34 0.49 0.50 4.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.49 0.00 0.67
August 4.97 0.35 0.50 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.79 0.00 1.46
September 6.76 2.48 0.50 2.97 0.00 0.00 6.35 0.42 0.00 1.88
October 4.54 1.35 0.50 1.65 0.00 0.00 3.32 1.41 0.00 3.29
November 4.48 0.94 0.50 0.85 0.00 0.00 3.90 1.16 0.00 4.45
December 3.85 0.37 0.50 0.15 0.00 0.00 3 85 0.72 0.49 4.68
Annual Totals Sfi 44 x 1% 5 cfi! ----~---- '~ ------ ~ - ---- j
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1989 P Si * Gi PET So Go Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 2.26 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.00 0.00 2.63 -0.28 0.00 0.00
February 3.04 0.00 0.50 0.29 0.00 0.00 1.61 1.64 0.00 1.64
March 3.82 0.19 0.50 1.16 0.00 0.00 3.13 0.22 0.00 1.86
April 2.6 0.00 0.50 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.91 0.00 2? i
May 5.38 0.76 0.50 2.68 0.00 0.00 3.16 0.81 0.00
June 8.75 1.28 0.50 4.51 0.00 0.00 2.99 3.03 1.92
July 13.61 4.11 0.50 4.78 0.00 0.00 9.04 4.39 4.39
August 6.29 2.20 0.50 4.34 0.00 0.00 0.11 4.54 4.54 4 3F6
September 14.02 4.87 0.50 3.29 0.00 0.00 7.93 8.17 8.17
October 5.49 1.23 0.50 2.02 0.00 0.00 4.63 0.58 0.58 4 ~_;k
November 8.98 5.02 0.50 0.64 0.00 0.00 7.06 6.80 6.80

December
2.04
0.08
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.65
-0.04
0.00 __

Annual Totals
76.28
19.74
6.00
25.92
0.00
0.00
45.33 _

6
5
v', 4
d
t
v
c
d
E
3
> 3
d
c
ca
r
m
3 2
1
0
Water Budget
Proposed Conditions
Wetland #3
Growing Season
May 2 -October 6
4.68" Maximum Capacity
~ - - - - -
/ ~

~ _ /
-
-
, !
~ •~
*-
,
. / ~
~ /
`
", ~~ '
", ,
. ~
/ ~

/ •e~ ^~ 12" Below
d S
rf
G

/~ roun
u
ace
/ ~

~ ~
f
r

Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
4.68 in. - Maximum
Capacity
1.6 in. -Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
- ~^ Dry Year (1988)
- • ! Average Year (1966)
- ~ - Wet Year (1989)

Crab Creek - Existina Conditions (Wetland #41
D Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1988 P Si' Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 1.42 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.04 0.00 10.48 -9.06 0.00 0.00
February 2.03 0.09 1.00 0.08 1.09 0.00 9.13 -7.18 0.00 0.00
March 1.29 0.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.00 8.91 -8.54 0.00 0.00
April 4.18 0.38 1.00 1.97 1.38 0.00 7.85 -5.64 0.00 0.00
May 3.28 0.56 1.00 2.81 1.56 0.00 3.61 -3.15 0.00 0.00
June 2.77 0.04 1.00 4.10 1.04 0.00 2.85 -4.17 0.00 0.00
July 2.90 0.06 1.00 4.79 1.06 0.00 2.61 -4.50 0.00 0.00
August 2.98 0.18 1.00 4.78 1.18 0.00 2.56 -4.36 0.00 0.00
September 3.25 0.20 1.00 3.23 1.20 0.00 6.93 -6.92 0.00 0.00
October 1.60 0.06 1.00 1.27 1.06 0.00 6.72 -6.39 0.00 0.00
November 5.50 1.03 1.00 0.85 2.03 0.00 9.89 -5.24 0.00 0.00
December 1.63 0.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.00 9.69 -8.22 0.00 0.00
Annual Totals
Av .Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1966 P Si' Gi PET So Go Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 4.16 0.25 1.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 11.90 -7.74 0.00 0.00
February 6.92 1.67 1.00 0.04 2.67 0.00 12.87 -5.99 0.00 0.00
March 1.70 0.09 1.00 0.87 1.09 0.00 9.34 -8.50 0.00 0.00
April 3.41 0.13 1.00 1.79 1.13 0.00 7.77 -6.15 0.00 0.00
May 4.03 0.11 1.00 3.16 1.11 0.00 4.77 -3.90 0.00 0.00
June 2.33 0.03 1.00 4.04 1.03 0.00 3.72 -5.43 0.00 0.00
July 3.34 0.49 1.00 4.81 1.49 0.00 1.60 -3.07 0.00 0.00
August 4.97 0.35 1.00 4.25 1.35 0.00 4.98 -4.25 0.00 0.00
September 6.76 2.48 1.00 2.97 3.48 0.00 7.18 -3.39 0.00 0.00
October 4.54 1.35 1.00 1.65 2.35 0.00 8.95 -6.06 0.00 0.00
November 4.48 0.94 1.00 0.85 1.94 0.00 9.40 -5.77 0.00 0.00
December 3.85 0.37 1.00 0.15 1.37 0.00 12.18 -8.47 0.00 0.00
Annual Totals SO 4~ - ~ - t 2 06 ~4 g ~~, 1,
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1989 P Si " Gi PET So Ga Loss to Ditches/Stream Storage Water Volume
January 2.26 0.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.00 10.65 -8.79 0.00 0.00
February 3.04 0.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.00 9.43 -6.68 0.00 0.00
March 3.82 0.19 1.00 1.16 1.19 0.00 10.82 -8.16 D.00 0.00
April 2.6 0.00 1.00 1.81 1.00 0.00 6.02 -5.23 0.00 0.00
May 5.38 0.76 1.00 2.68 1.76 0.00 5.44 -2.74 0.00 0.00
June 8.75 1.28 1.00 4.51 2.28 0.00 6.91 -2.67 0.00 0.00
July 13.61 4.11 1.00 4.78 5.11 0.00 9.09 -0.26 0.00 0.00
August 6.29 2.20 1.00 4.34 3.20 0.00 2.37 -0.42 0.00 0.00
September 14.02 4.87 1.00 3.29 5.87 0.00 8.55 2.18 0.00 2.18
October 5.49 1.23 1.00 2.02 2.23 0.00 9.79 -6.31 0.00 0.00
November 8.98 5.02 1.00 0.64 6.02 0.00 10.04 -1.70 0.00 0.00
December 2.04 0.08 1.00 0.00 1.08 0.00 10.96 -8.92 0.00 0.00
Annual Totals 76.28 19.74 12.00 25.92 31.74 0.00 100.06

•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6
5
w' 4
m
t
v
c
d
E
0
> 3
d
~.
is
c
ca
~.
3 2
Water Budget
Existing Conditions
Wetland #4
Growing Season
May 2 -October 6
4.68" Maximum Capacity

r ~
~ 12" Below
/ ~
/ ~
1 - ------___ ____---.._.-_ --.._-_. ~ ~
/ ~
! ~
/ y
r
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct.
Nov. Dec.
4.68 in. - Maximum
Capacity
1.6 in. -Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
- -« Dry Year (1988)
- • f Average Year (1966)
- ~ - Wet Year (1989)

Crab Creek -Proposed Conditions (Wetland #41
D Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1988 P Si ` Gi PET So Ga Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 1.42 0.04 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.01 -8.55 0.00 0.00
February 2.03 0.09 1.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 9.81 -6.77 0.00 0.00
March 1.29 0.00 1.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 8.91 -7.54 0.00 0.00
April 4.18 0.38 1.00 1.97 0.00 0.00 10.36 -6.77 0.00 0.00
May 3.28 0.56 1.00 2.81 0.00 0.00 6.79 -4.76 0.00 0.00
June 2.77 0.04 1.00 4.10 0.00 0.00 3.50 -3.79 0.00 0.00
July 2.90 0.06 1.00 4.79 0.00 0.00 2.26 -3.09 0.00 0.00
August 2.98 0.18 1.00 4.78 0.00 0.00 2.44 -3.07 0.00 0.00
September 3.25 0.20 1.00 3.23 0.00 0.00 6.74 -5.52 0.00 0.00
October 1.60 0.06 1.00 1.27 0.00 0.00 6.70 -5.31 0.00 D.00
November 5.50 1.03 1.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 9.28 -2.60 0.00 0.00
December 1.63 0.00 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 9.61 -7.15 0.00 0.00
Annual Totals
Av .Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1966 P Si ` Gi PET So Ga Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 4.16 0.25 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.63 -5.22 0.00 0.00
February 6.92 1.67 1.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 11.28 -1.73 0.00 0.00
March 1.70 0.09 1.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 10.43 -8.50 0.00 0.00
April 3.41 0.13 1.00 1.79 0.00 0.00 9.74 -6.99 0.00 0.00
May 4.03 0.11 1.00 3.16 0.00 0.00 8.11 -6.14 0.00 0.00
June 2.33 0.03 1.00 4.04 0.00 0.00 4.50 -5.17 0.00 0.00
July 3.34 0.49 1.00 4.81 0.00 0.00 1.96 -1.95 0.00 0.00
August 4.97 0.35 1.00 4.25 0.00 0.00 4.58 -2.50 0.00 0.00
September 6.76 2.48 1.00 2.97 0.00 0.00 6.92 0.35 0.00 0.35
October 4.54 1.35 1.00 1.65 0.00 0.00 8.63 -3.39 0.00 0.00
November 4.48 0.94 1.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 8.93 -3.36 0.00 0.00
December 3.85 0.37 1.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 11.36 -6.29 0.00 0.00
Annual Totals
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess Wetland
1989 P Si' Gi PET So Go Loss to Stream Storage Water Volume
January 2.26 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 10.96 -8.10 0.00 0.00
February 3.04 0.00 1.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 8.33 -4.57 0.00 0.00
March 3.82 0.19 1.00 1.16 0.00 0.00 11.77 -7.93 0.00 0.00
April 2.6 0.00 1.00 1.81 0.00 0.00 8.80 -7.00 0.00 0.00
May 5.38 0.76 1.00 2.68 0.00 0.00 8.50 -4.03 0.00 0.00
June 8.75 1.28 1.00 4.51 0.00 0.00 6.69 -0.17 0.00 0.00
July 13.61 4.11 1.00 4.78 0.00 0.00 8.84 5.10 0.42 4.68
August 6.29 2.20 1.00 4.34 0.00 0.00 3.14 2.01 2.01 4.68
September 14.02 4.87 1.00 3.29 0.00 0.00 6.74 9.86 9.86 4.68
October 5.49 1.23 1.00 2.02 0.00 0.00 10.18 -4.47 0.00 0.21
November 8.98 5.02 1.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 9.35 5.01 0.54 4.68
December 2.04 0.08 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.93 -7.81 0.00 0.00
Annual Totals 76.28 19.74 12.00 25.92 0.00 0.00 104.21

Water Budget
Proposed Conditions
Wetland #4
6
5
y 4
d
t
c
m
E
0
> 3
L
d
w
R
c
m
~ 2
1
0
4.68 in. - Maximum
Capacity
1.6 in. -Jurisdictional
Boundary (12" below
ground)
- +~ Dry Year (1988)
- - ~ Average Year (1966)
I
- ~ - Wet Year (1989)
Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

sri.,
2 ~„'
~~~ ~ ~ ~ .,
,._
-- s
-'
,_ ~
t r+.+.
'~
-` r .~;..
~.~~ s __ - --_ _, . ,F.
---~ ~' ~~
Hydrologic Analysis Areas
Project Bounduy Area I
"`~,,~ Stream Restoration ~ Area 2
~ ~, Existing Stream ~-; Area 3
Other Streams ~ Area 4 l ~~(..OSyStell
• • Other Streams (Intermittent) 30-ft Stream Buffer
1:2,400 ~" ~~ ~ ~~
~ Ditches "'~`
ASSU~IATES ~F N~ I inch equals 200 feet
200 100 0 200
n,~a~~• tin„~~~_ .au~bna~„ co~,»n cis. o„v~r~no~en zon; Feet

0
.~
~--~
CC3
r-+
U
,-~
~C
'~ N
~, U
N ~'
~ ~
O
. ,.~
N

~'hapfer 5 The Predretron Level Assessment (PLA j •
~.;. ~
Worksheet 5-i5. Sediment competence calculation form to assess bed stability.
Stream: ~ _ ~C ~`~ . ~~~., Stream Type:
Location: Valley Type:
Observers: ~ pate;
En#er required information
J~ D5a Riffle bed material Dso (mm)
G~"-'~ ~o Bar sampie Qso (mm)
'~'~
~ Dm,~ Largest particle from bar sampie (ft) 'pi..,~ (mm
) 30~i.8
mmlft
~~~ S Existing bankfull water surface slope (t#fft}
1 t d Existing bankfuil mean depth (ft)
b~~ YS Submerged specific weight of sediment

Select the appropri ate equation and calculate critical dimensionless shear stress
n
D50lD50
Range: 3 - 7 Use EQUATION 1:'G' = OA834 (D IDS ) -o.e~z
50 50
q~ •~' D,~a,~1D30 Range: 1.3 - 3.0 Use EQUATION 2,'~- = 13.0384 ~D 1D ) -°'esr
max 50
i ~~~ ~' Bankfull Dfinensioniess Shear Stress EQUATION USED:

Calculate bankfuii mean depth required for entrainment of largest particle in bar sample

~,

d
2 sD~aX
*Y
Required bankful{ mean depth (ft} d
S
Check / 1- Stable C Aggrading ~ Degrading ~,~(~~-~~~~ (~Q, ~~1

Calculate bankfuli wa#er surface slope required for entrainment of larges# particle in
bar sample
s
` S Required bankfuli water surface slope (ft/ft) $ m Z *'YSDm~
~ d
Check /: r Stable r Aggrading ,~f Degrading tS~Ct~`~~ "-~ ` ~` c

Sediment competence using dimensional shear stress
BankfuN shear stress 'C = ydS (Ibslft~} (substitute hydraulic radius, R, with mean depth, d)
~'~~ Mcveable particle size (mm) at bankfuli shear stress (1=figure 5-54)
`I t.('~ Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Dm,~ (mm) (Figure 5-54) ~7~'}
} ~ ~ Predlcted mean depth required to initiate movement of D,,,,x (mm} d - S
i ~~~ Predicted slope required #o initiate movement of Qmu (mm} S • ~
d
5-135 ~
_-~-1QR ~

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•.
•
•
•~
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
i
•
•
•
•
Chapter 5
~, :..,.
The Predirtian Level Assessment (PLA)
Worksheet 5.15. Sediment competence calculation farm to assess bed s#ability.

Stream: -~,~, ~ {~ ~ Stream Type:
Location: ~;,r~ ~ C~ , t ~'•~ Valley l"ype:
Observers: Date:
Enter required information
~ D$o Riffle bed material D~Q (mm)
~so Bar sample D.o {mm)
''2L~ Dm~ Largest particle from bar sample (ft} j~ ~~~~' (mm} mgm/ft
~ $ Existing bankfui) water surface slope (ft/ft}
1 ~ d -E~isti+ag bankfull mean depth (ft) ~4 ~ a~~
~~ .~ . ~s Submerged specific weight of sediment

Select the appropri ate equation and calculate critical dimensionless shear stress
O~~iDS~ Range: 3 - 7 Use EQUATIQN 1:'C = 0.0834 (D50/D5e } -a.e
~~ Dm~lDgo Range: 1.3 - 3.0 Use E©UATII~N 2:'C = 0.03$4 (Dmax~Dsu~ -o.se7
~~~ ~ Bankfuil Dimensionless Shear Stress EQUAi it7N USED:

Calculate bankfuii mean depth required for entrainment of largest particle in bar sample

I ,~

d *~
Z SDn~
Required bankfuil mean depth {ft} d
Check J: C Stable C Aggrading _r., Degrading

Calculate bankfuli water surtace slope required far entrainment ofi (argent particle in
bar sample
t~~ $ Required bankfuB water surface slope {ft/ft} $ ~ ~ *'YsDmax
d
Check /: i : Stable C Aggrading E" Degrading

Sediment competence using dimensional shear stress _ (~,, ; `,
,~~ Sanicfuif shear stress Z = ^rdS (Ibsifrz) (substitu#e hydraulic radius, R, with mean depth, d}
1a~~ Moveable particle size (mmj at bankfull shear stress {1=figure 5.54}
t~ Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of D~b~mm} (Figure 5.54} CT}~
14 .~ Predicted mean depth required to initiate movement of Dm,~ (mm) d a t~
2
Predicted slope required to initia#e movement of D„~ {mm) S ° d

5-135