20070494 Ver 2_Restoration Plan_20080319

11

1
1
1
1
RESTORATION PLAN
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN CATALOGING UNIT 06010106
EEP Contract No.: D06035-A
Prepared for:
?em t
?. ,1? ?t?l _ 0l141a'1 It
'ROI:"'
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
And
t1.a
-??I?olf ree
IN EERIP{
Wolf Creek Engineering, PLLC
30 Ben Lippen School Road, Suite 203
Asheville, North Carolina
828-505-2186
January 23, 2008
U7 - 049 y lcr L
?gw
[R 3 Do
?'M
MAR 1 9 2008
DENR - WATER UUAUTY
V&-TI ANDS AND STORMWATER 9R"H

MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

' Restoration Systems, LLC is planning to restore and enhance degraded reaches of Morgan
Creek and three tributaries to Morgan Creek (North Branch, Middle Branch and South
Branch) at a site located in northeast Haywood County. The work is under contract to the
' North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The Morgan Creek Restoration Site
(SITE) will provide approximately 3748 stream mitigation units (SMU's) and 0.83 wetland
mitigation units (WMU's).

General Site Conditions
The Morgan Creek Restoration Site is located within approximately 50 acres of
' predominately agricultural and low density residential land located approximately 10 miles
north of the town of Waynesville in Haywood County. The SITE is located within the French
Broad River Basin (Cataloguing Unit 06010106), specifically within the targeted local
watershed 06010106020040. The SITE includes approximately 3,900 linear feet of degraded
channels, 0.51 acres of existing wetlands, 0.60 acres of non jurisdictional hydric soils, and 9.8
acres of impacted riparian buffers.

Historic land use at the SITE has consisted primarily of agriculture and livestock grazing.
Upscale residential development is beginning within the watershed with the opening of the
1 Ferguson Mountain gated community. Streams within the SITE were historically accessible to
livestock, resulting in local disturbances to stream banks and wetland soil surfaces. Additional
land use practices, including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation, and
relocating, dredging, and straightening of on-site streams have contributed to the degraded
water quality and unstable channel characteristics.
The property is owned by James L. Ferguson, Marion Ferguson, and J. Neil Ferguson. A
10.25-acre conservation easement has been placed on the property within which all restoration
activities will occur. This easement was conveyed to the North Carolina State Property Office
' on January 5, 2007.
Restoration Concept
Restoration and enhancement practices proposed for this project have been designed with the
intent to minimize unnecessary disturbance to adjacent land and to protect mature riparian
vegetation where it exists. Professional judgment has been used to determine which channel
' reaches could potentially benefit most from preservation or enhancement over full restoration.
Where restoration was determined to be warranted, consideration was given to which reaches
could best be served by maintaining as much of the existing channel pattern as possible.
' The proposed reaches of Morgan Creek and its tributaries are designed as Type B4 and Type
134a streams. This channel configuration provides the most stable and natural form in the
moderately sloping colluvial valleys that are found throughout the SITE. Additionally, since
broad alluvial valleys are not found within the SITE, the lower sinuosity of the Type B4
streams will result in minimizing grading and earthwork activities. The proposed channel
dimensions, patterns, and profiles are based on hydraulic relationships and morphologic
dimensionless ratios of the reference reaches.
NCEEP 1 January 2008

MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
The installation of rock and wood structures will be utilized throughout the restored reaches
of the SITE. Rock cross vanes will be used for grade control to prevent headcut formation.
Log vanes with rootwads will be installed in meander bends to direct the flow away from the
outside of the bend and provide toe and bank protection. On-site material including bed
material, boulders, and logs will be used to the maximum extent possible.
Proposed wetland areas are underlain by hydric soils but are non jurisdictional due to
insufficient hydrology. Channel restoration will reestablish a greater dependency between the
floodplain and the channel. Overbank flooding and better utilization of nearby seepage
hydrology will provide the needed hydrology to sustain these hydric soil zones as
jurisdictional wetlands. Areas where jurisdictional wetlands presently occur will be enhanced
by the planting of appropriate woody and herbaceous plantings. Each wetland restoration and
enhancement area will be planted with species appropriate to the ecoregion and will promote
the functionality of the wetlands as integral parts of the riparian corridor.
Restoration Activities
Specific restoration and enhancement activities will include the following:
• Restore approximately 3,483 linear feet of stream through Priority 1 and 2 restoration
strategies (3,483 SMUs).
• Enhance approximately 530 linear feet of stream (265 SMUs).
• Restore approximately 0.60 acres of wetlands (0.6 WMUs).
• Enhance approximately 0.46 acres of wetlands (0.23 WMUs).
• Restore approximately 9.5 acres of riparian buffers.
NCEEP ii January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXEC UTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... ...i
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION ............................................................. ..1

' 1.1
1.2 DIRECTIONS TO SITE ..................................................................................................
USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE AND NCDWQ RIVER BASIN DESIGNATION ............. ..1
..1
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................... ..1
2.1 DRAINAGE AREAS ....................................................................................................... .. I
2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION / WATER QUALITY ............................................... ..2
2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS ....................................................................... ..2
2.4
2.5 HISTORIC LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS .....................................................
PLANT COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................. ..3
..3
2.6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .................................................................. ..4
2. 61 Summary of Listed Species ................................................................................. 4
2. 62 Summary of Anticipated Effects .......................................................................... S
2.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... ..5
2.8
3.0 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS ...........................................................................................
SITE STREAMS ............................................................................................................ ..6
..6
3.1 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION .......................................................... ..6
3.2 DISCHARGE AND BANKFULL VERIFICATION ................................................................ .. 7
3.3 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. ..7
4.0
4.1 REFERENCE STREAMS .............................................................................................
WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION .............................................................................. ..8
..8
4.2 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION .......................................................... ..8
4.3
4.4 DISCHARGE AND BANKFULL VERIFICATION ................................................................
CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. ..8
..9
4.5 VEGETATION ............................................................................................................... ..9

' 5.0
5.1 SITE WETLANDS .........................................................................................................
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ....................................................................................... ..9
..9
5.2 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION ......................................................................... 10
1 5.3
5.4 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ..............................................................................................
PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................... 10
10
6.0 SITE RESTORATION PLAN ...................................................................................... 11
6.1 RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................... 11
6.2 PROPOSED CHANNEL DESIGN AND CLASSIFICATION
6.2.1 Proposed Morgan Creek ..................................................................................12
62.2 Proposed North, Lower North and South Branches ......................................... 13
' 6 2.3 Proposed Middle Branch ..................................................................................13
6.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 13
6.4 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 14
6.5 PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION ........................................................................... 14
6.6 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION ............................................................ 14
661 On-Site Invasive Species Management ............................................................. 15
7.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION . ........................... 15
7.1 STREAMS AND WETLANDS .......................................................................................... 15

NCEEP 111
January 2008

MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
7.2 VEGETATION ...............................................................................................................16
7.3 SCHEDULE / REPORTING ..............................................................................................16
8.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................17
TABLES
Table I. Restoration Structure and Objectives
Table II. Drainage Areas
Table III. Valley Slopes
Table IV. Mapped Soils
Table V. Land Use of Watershed
Table VI. Morphologic Table
Table VII. Sediment Transport Analysis
Table VIII. Wetland Impacts
Table IX. Designated Vegetative Communities
FIGURES
Figure 1. SITE Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Watershed Map
Figure 3. Soil Survey Map
Figure 4. Existing Hydrologic Features Map
Figure 5. Proposed Hydrologic Features Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A. SITE Photographs
Appendix B. Existing SITE Stream Data
Appendix C. NCDWQ Stream Forms
Appendix D. Reference Reach Photographs
Appendix E. Reference Reach Data
Appendix F. Design Calculations
Appendix G. Categorical Exclusion Form
Appendix H. Wetland Data Sheets
Appendix I. Design Sheets
NCEEP iv January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
I

L

1

t
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1.1 Directions to SITE
RESTORATIONPLAN
The Morgan Creek Restoration Site (SITE) is located in northeast Haywood County,
approximately 10 miles north of the town of Waynesville (see Figure 1). To reach the SITE
from Asheville, take I-40 west approximately 35 miles to the Fines Creek exit (Exit 15). Turn
right onto Fines Creek Rd and proceed approximately 3.4 miles to Kirkpatrick Cove (Fines
Creek School/Library will be located on the left). Turn left onto Kirkpatrick Cove and travel
approximately 0.25 mile. The southern terminus of the SITE will be on the right side of
Kirkpatrick Cove. The cul-de-sac, used for parking, at the northernmost end of the site is
located at a latitude/longitude of 35.6881 ° North and 82.9547° West.
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designation
The SITE is located in the Pigeon River watershed of the French Broad River Basin, United
States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit Hydrologic Unit 06010106020040, within the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) sub basin 04-03-05. Morgan Creek drains
into Fines Creek immediately downstream of the SITE, which in turn flows into the Pigeon
River approximately 5 miles downstream. The Pigeon River thence flows 40 miles to its
confluence with the French Broad River. Morgan Creek has been assigned the Stream Index
Number 5-32-7 by DWQ.
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
The SITE is located in a rural watershed within the Blue Ridge hydrophysiographic region of
North Carolina (see Figure 2). The SITE watershed is characteristic of the Mountain region
with moderate rainfall and steep valley walls. Annual precipitation within Haywood County
averages 46 inches and elevations within the SITE range from 2500 ft. to 2625 ft. (NGVD).
The SITE encompasses approximately 3,900 linear feet of streams including an
approximately 3,100 linear feet reach of Morgan Creek and three tributaries named for the
purposes of this project as North Branch, Middle Branch, and South Branch. In addition,
there exist several small wetland areas adjacent to Morgan Creek.
2.1 Drainage Areas
The drainage area of Morgan Creek is 0.47 miz (300 ac) at the upstream end of the SITE and
0.73 mil (467 ac) at the downstream end. At their respective confluences with Morgan Creek,
the drainage areas of the tributaries are: North Branch, 0.18 mil (112 ac); Middle Branch,
0.004 mil (2.5 ac); and South Branch, 0.006 mil (3.8 ac). See Table II for a complete listing
of the drainage areas.
NCEEP 1
January 2008
E
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality
According to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) website, Morgan Creek, from its source to
Fines Creek, is listed as a Class C watercourse. As such, there are no restrictions on
watershed development or types of discharge. These waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with
water on an organized or frequent basis. Fines Creek, from its source to the Pigeon River, as
well as the portion of the Pigeon River located approximately 5 miles south of the SITE, are
listed on the DWQ final 2006 303(d) list. Streams which are included in the 303(d) list have
impaired uses or do not meet water quality standards. Listing of these streams likely results
from non-point agriculture and urban runoff, and potentially from industrial point source
discharges. Specifically, the reason given for the listing of Fines Creek and the Pigeon River
is "Impaired Biological Integrity."
Additionally, it should be noted that the Blue Ridge Paper Company operates a paper mill in
Canton, North Carolina, approximately 20 miles upstream on the Pigeon River. This mill,
formerly owned by Champion International, was historically the source of significant
pollutant loads in the Pigeon River and which included dioxin and numerous toxic
organochlorines in its wastewater effluent. The plant was modernized in 1995 and converted
to use Elemental-Chlorine-Free technology which has contributed to significant
improvements in water quality in the Pigeon River.
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The SITE is located in the Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains ecoregion of North
Carolina. This ecoregion consists of narrow ridges, hilly plateaus, and high peaks, having
high-gradient, cool, clear streams with mostly gravel and cobble substrates. The underlying
geology consists of primarily metamorphic rocks composed of gneiss and schist covered by
mostly acidic, loamy soils. The valleys throughout the SITE are moderately sloped colluvial
valleys with cross-slopes ranging from 4% to 44% and longitudinal slopes typically ranging
from 2% to 12%. See Table III for a listing of the valley slopes within the SITE.
The SITE lies in the low mountains of North Carolina, just east of the Pigeon River, in rolling
topography underlain by metamorphic gneisses and schists. The upland soils in the area are
well drained and generally have reddish-brown, loamy sub-soils (Evard, Fannin, Hayesville
Soil Series). The alluvial soils along the stream systems in the area generally occur in bands
along the stream channels. Alluvial soils are poorly to somewhat poorly drained and
generally have grayish-brown loamy sub-soils (Nikwasi, Hemphill, or taxadjusts of those
hydric series). Soil series within the floodplain areas not proposed for wetland restoration are
most like the better drained Whiteside and French Series.
NCEEP 2 January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
2.4 Historic Land Use and Development Trends
The watershed upstream of the SITE is characterized mainly by agricultural and forested land
(see Table V). Residential land use accounts for only a marginal percentage of the watershed.
Some developmental pressure can be anticipated in the future from growth associated with the
development of the proximal ridgeline for low density residential use; however, dramatic
changes in land use in the immediate future are not likely. Currently residential land use
makes up approximately 8 percent of the watershed and impervious area covers
approximately 4 percent of the total watershed. On-site land uses include pastureland, hay
production, and several small pine/hardwood forest stands. Grazing livestock have historically
had access to most on-site stream reaches and the adjacent terraces. The lack of exclusionary
barriers appears to have contributed to the degradation of stream banks and soil profile
integrity.
2.5 Plant Communities
¦ The SITE is characterized by pastureland, forested slopes, and poorly developed/disturbed
riparian buffers. The SITE was historically and is presently grazed by livestock. Pastureland
dominates the majority of the SITE adjacent to the stream reaches and is characterized by
herbs and native/wetland grasses.
Morgan Creek is surrounded by an active cow pasture comprised mostly of fescue and other
pasture grasses but contains other herbaceous species including ironweed (Vernonia
noveboracensis), blackberries (Rubus sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Carolina elephant's foot
(Elephantopus carolinianus), thistle (Carduus sp.), horse nettle (Solanum sp.), and chickory
(Cichorium intybus).
Other herbaceous species were observed in limited density along the stream bank and in wet
areas along the lower third of Morgan Creek. These species included smartweed (Persicaria
pennsylvanicum), New England aster (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae), various sedges
(Carex sp.), agrimony (Agrimonia parviflora), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis), great blue
lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica), soft stem rush (Juncus effusus), boneset (Eupatorium
perfoliatum), and joe-pye weed (Eupatoriadelphus fistulosus). Jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis) was observed in dense stands along stream banks and in wet areas. Vines onsite
include hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata), and various other vines in the Fabaceae
family.
Existing woody tree and shrub vegetation along Morgan Creek was widely scattered in the
cow pasture and included large thickets of Rosa multi flora and a few specimens of black
walnut (Juglans nigra), hawthorn (Crataegus crusgalli), swamp rose (Rosa palustris),
cucumber magnolia (Magnolia acuminata), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Q.
alba), and chestnut oak (Q. prinus). More densely forested areas onsite include the steep
slopes to the east of Morgan Creek and the lower third of Morgan Creek. Specimens in these
areas were also large and included the species listed above as well as black cherry (Prunus
serotina), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), witch hazel (Hamamelis viginiana), and
NCEEP
3 January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
spicebush (Lindera benzoin). One large yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava) was observed along
one of the tributaries entering Morgan Creek from the east.
The existing vegetation surrounding the adjacent tributaries generally had a well developed
canopy and a sparse understory of shrubs and herbs. Canopy species include hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), great rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and
sassafras (Sassafras albidum). Understory species include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), as well as many of the species listed above along Morgan
Creek. The herbaceous layer is typically sparse in the cut over areas. Herbaceous species
within the densely forested areas included stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), maidenhair fern
(Adiantum pedatum), mountain mint (Pycnanthemum tenuifolium), various ferns and others.
These areas contained large dense stands of goldenrod (Solidago sp.), New England aster, tear
thumb (Persicaria sagittata), as well as Staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), blackberries (Rubus
sp.), and several larger saplings of tulip poplar and other canopy trees.
A small stand of the exotic, invasive shrub Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) was
observed along the road between North Branch and Morgan Creek. A few small patches of
the exotic, invasive species Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Kudzu (Pueraria
montana) were scattered throughout the SITE. Large thickets of the exotic, invasive plant
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) are present in the pasture areas and along the stream banks
of Morgan Creek.
2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
A preliminary analysis of potential conflicts with federally listed threatened and endangered
species was performed for the areas that will be affected by restoration efforts.
2.6.1 Summary of Listed Species
There are nine federally listed species with at least historical record of occurrence in
Haywood County as identified through the US Fish & Wildlife Service website. The listed
species as well as their designation are as follows: Eastern puma, endangered (E); gray bat,
endangered (E); Indiana bat, endangered (E); Carolina northern flying squirrel, endangered
(E); bald eagle, delisted; bog turtle, threatened (T S/A); Appalachian elktoe, endangered (E);
spruce-fir moss spider, endangered (E); small whorled pogonia, threatened (T).
Note: The designation "T (S/A) " refers to a taxon which is threatened due to a similarity of
appearance with other rare species. In this instance, the listed bog turtle is designated T
(S/A) as a means of protecting the rare northern subspecies of bog turtle.
The preliminary analysis of potential conflicts with federally listed species concluded that
three species (small whorled pogonia, Indiana bat, and gray bat) needed further field
assessment in order to determine if habitat was present for them.
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeloides): Plant is a perennial member of the
orchid family which displays green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed,
projecting radially from the top of a smooth, hollow stem. A single or perhaps two
NCEEP 4 January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
1 flowers are produced at the top of the stem from May to mid-June. In North Carolina
the plant tends to be found in association with montane oak-hickory or acidic cove
forests at elevations between 2,000 and 4,000 feet (MSL).
Gray bat Mods zrisescens) and Indiana bat (Mvotis solalis): Literature suggests that
both bats roost and nest in caves throughout their range, but the Indiana bat can also
roost under the bark of certain hickories (bitternut and shagbark). After ruling out
potential impacts to cave sites, it was important to determine if suitable roosting
habitat for the Indiana bat occurred in close proximity to the proposed mitigation
' footprint.
' 2.6.2 Summary of Anticipated Effects
Based on the scope of proposed work involved in implementing the restoration activities, land
disturbing activities will occur only in a narrow band (+/- 100 feet wide) along portions of
both riparian corridors. A review of the habitat requirements for each of the listed species
confirms that the project activities will not disturb habitats for the Carolina northern flying
1 squirrel, bald eagle, Eastern puma, or the spruce-fir moss spider. The size of the four stream
reaches targeted for restoration does not constitute suitable habitat for the Appalachian elktoe.
Phone coordination between previous consultant, Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
(S&EC), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's Western Aquatic Non-
game Coordinator, Steve Fraley, confirms that there is no suitable elktoe habitat downstream
of the SITE including the section of the Pigeon River into which Fines Creek flows.
S
ll
h
l
d
ma
w
or
e
po onia: Habitat within the potential construction footprint of the
SITE included an overall matrix of pasture grasses interspersed with an almost
impenetrable continuum of Rosa multiflora and Rubus sp. Based on an absence of
suitable habitat, it is reasonable to conclude that the project will have No Effect on
small whorled pogonia.
r I
di
n
ana bat and Gray bat: No shagbark hickories or other suitable loose-barked trees
will be removed as part of the restoration activities. To ensure that all potential roost
sites were identified in proximity to the project, S&EC walked parallel transects
throughout the forested habitats surrounding the mitigation site. No suitable roost
sites are located in the vicinity of the project. Based upon an absence of suitable
habitat, it is reasonable to conclude the project will have No Effect on the Indiana bat.
' 2.7 Cultural Resources
n
L
t
In July of 2006, RS sent notice to the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) that the
Morgan Creek Project had been awarded and requested that a search be conducted to
determine if any historical or archeological resources would be impacted. SHPO responded
to RS that there are "no known recorded archeological sites within the project boundaries."
However, due to the geographical location of the project, SHPO requested that a
comprehensive archeological survey be completed to determine the "significance of
archeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project."
NCEEP 5
January 2008
1
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORA TION PLAN I
In accordance with this recommendation, a comprehensive archeological survey was
completed by Legacy Research Associates, Inc. in September of 2006. Their findings
concluded that the site should not be "recommended as being eligible for the National
Register of Historical Places" and that "no further archeological work is needed." A full copy
of this survey was sent to SHPO for review, and on November 16, 2006 a letter from SHPO
informed RS that they "concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve
significant archeological resources." (Appendix G)
2.8 Potential Constraints
No structures will remain within the bounds of the restoration reaches or their conservation
easements. A small concrete pad and several select reaches of fencing which are located
within the proposed construction area will be removed. Buried utilities were identified along
Kirkpatrick Cove Rd. (SR 1340). These utilities may require specific location and marking
by the construction contractor prior to commencement of restoration activities. Temporary
construction easements (TCE) have been identified and recorded for use during construction
operations.
3.0 SITE STREAMS
On-site streams have been characterized based on fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen
1996a). A topographic survey was conducted of the entire SITE to provide information for
the development of construction plans and to provide sufficient detail to assess existing
geomorphic conditions throughout the SITE.
3.1 Channel Morphology and Classification
Morgan Creek has been realigned and dredged throughout the project reach, resulting in a
channel form that is incised with low sinuosity. The channel classifies as a Type C4b stream
under the Rosgen classification system throughout most of the upper reach. The existing
entrenchment and bank height ratios are approximately 3.3 and 1.8, respectively, and the
width-depth ratio is 23.7. The high bank-height ratios result in increasing the stress on the
stream banks. The profile appears vertically stable, although in some parts, the bed has
degraded sufficiently to require lifting. Bed material consists of larger cobble material and
gravel size material composing the majority of the movable bed. Depositional material of silt
and sand has recently been colonized by herbaceous vegetation resulting in an excessively
narrow low flow channel. This condition will focus shear stress on a narrow portion of the
channel bed and further destabilize the channel.
The lower reach of Morgan Creek classifies as a Type G4 stream. Entrenchment ratios and
bank height ratios vary significantly with some areas having entrenchment ratios as high as
4.9. However, the channel is incised throughout this reach and consistently displays the
characteristic form and process of a Type G stream, with scoured vertical banks and low
NCEEP 6 January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORAT/ON SITE RESTORATION PLAN
width/depth ratios. The bed material through this reach is consistent with the upper reach in
that it appears vertically stable and contains a significant fraction of large cobble.
North Branch is classified as a Type A4 stream and has an entrenchment ratio of
approximately 2.0. The bank height and width-depth ratios are approximately 1.5 and 7.1,
respectively. The low width/depth ratio combined with the relatively steep channel slope of
0.078 ft/ft creates an unstable channel form displayed in the multiple headcuts and eroding
banks.
1 Middle Branch is classified as a Type G4 stream with a width-depth ratio of 4.2 with an
entrenchment ratio of approximately 1.5. Several headcuts have developed along this reach
and the resulting upstream migration of these scarps are contributing significant sediment to
Morgan Creek. Middle Branch however does have a mature riparian buffer that is limiting
the lateral erosion of the channel banks.
South Branch is classified as a Type F4 stream with an entrenchment ratio ranging between
1.0 and 1.8. Bank height ratio ranges between 2.3 and 4.5, and width-depth ratio is
approximately 29. Although this reach is not characteristic of Type F channels in that the
overall channel slope of 0.09 ft/ft is much higher than the typical form, the channel slopes
between intervening headcuts are much more consistent with the classification. Most
significant on this reach are several extreme headcuts of 3 to 5 feet in height which are
progressing upstream.
1 3.2 Discharge and Bankfull Verification
Identification of bankfull elevation on degraded reaches is subject to a significant amount of
interpretation since the features can often be difficult to distinguish and even misleading.
Verification of bankfull was accomplished by plotting the bankfull cross sectional area for
each reach against the regional curve data (see Appendix F). Also included in this plot are the
bankf ill cross sectional areas for the reference reaches. The graph indicates that the bankfull
elevation identified in the surveyed reaches is consistent with the regional curve data.
After verification of bankfull cross sectional area, bankfull discharge was calculated for each
surveyed reach using a single-section analysis. Manning's `n' was estimated from relative
roughness calculations of the bed material and from observation of the channel flow
conditions. Water surface slope was assumed to be consistent with the slope of the bed
profile. Discharges were then plotted against a graph of the regional curve data and bankfull
discharges from the reference reaches. These data confirm that the calculated bankfull
discharges were consistent with the regional curve data.
3.3 Channel Stability Assessment
The existing channel stability was analyzed by evaluating existing width-depth ratios, bank
height ratios, and sediment transport. Width-depth ratios within the SITE are approximately
24 on reaches classified as Type C4b streams and 7 to 9 on reaches classified as Type G
streams. The width-depth ratios for the reference reaches were from 14 to 16 for the Type B4
NCEEP 7
January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
t
RESTORATION PLAN
stream. The lower width-depth ratios found within the SITE on Type G reaches will result in
a higher mean depth during bankfull events and subsequent increased shear stress on the bed.
Bank height ratios for stream reaches within the SITE range from 1.5 to 4.5 with a typical
value of 1.9. The bank height ratios for the reference reaches were typically 1.0 to 1.5. The
higher ratios found within the SITE result in significantly increased shear stress during
greater-than-bankfull flow events.
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS
Two reference reaches were identified and surveyed to assist in the design of the SITE
streams. The first reference is located on Cold Springs Creek, a tributary to the Pigeon River
in Haywood County. The second reference is a UT to North Branch adjacent to the SITE
conservation easement.
4.1 Watershed Characterization
Both reference reaches are located in the Blue Ridge hydrophysiographic region of North
Carolina. The watersheds are similar in many ways to the character of the SITE watershed
including average annual rainfall, elevation changes, and valley types. Both reference
watersheds are rural and consist predominantly of forest stands with some grassy fields
although there are no livestock on the land. The drainage areas for the Cold Springs Creek
reference and the UT to North Branch reference are 2.77 mil and 0.10 mil, respectively.
4.2 Channel Morphology and Classification
The two reference reaches were selected to represent the probable configurations for the
proposed stream restorations. Detailed geomorphic surveys and Level II Rosgen
classification were conducted on each of the reference reaches (See Appendix E and Table
VI).
The Cold Springs reach is representative of a B4 channel in a moderately sloped valley with a
narrow, constrained floodplain. The UT to North Branch is representative of a low sinuosity
134a stream in a moderately sloped, narrow, colluvial valley. Bed material, channel slope, and
valley form of both streams are consistent with the SITE and provide reasonable analogues
for the potential channel forms that can be expected at the SITE.
4.3 Discharge and Bankfull Verification
Bankfull was readily identified on each of these streams as they exhibited consistent
indicators throughout the reaches. Verification of bankfull was accomplished by plotting the
bankfull cross sectional area for each reach against the regional curve data. The graph
indicates that the bankfull identified in the surveyed reaches is consistent with the regional
curve data.
NCEEP 8 January 2008

MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
After verification of bankfull cross sectional area, bankfull discharge was calculated for each
surveyed reach using a single-section analysis. Manning's `n' was estimated from relative
roughness calculations of the bed material and from observation of the channel flow
conditions. Water surface slope was assumed to be consistent with the slope of the bed
profile. Discharges were then plotted against a graph of the regional curve data. The
graphing of these data indicated that the calculated bankfull discharges were consistent with
I the regional curve data.
4.4 Channel Stability Assessment
A detailed channel stability assessment was not performed for these reaches since the bank
1 and bed stability was obvious from observation. Subsequent review of the surveyed
dimensions confirmed that width-depth ratios and bank height ratios were within the
appropriate range for stable, self maintaining streams. Additional observations included
significant upstream and downstream reconnaissance to identify any past, present, or future
signs or sources of degradation.
4.5 Vegetation
The plant community survey was performed at Cold Spring Creek on November 9, 2007.
This small stream plant community, common to the Appalachian Mountains, is located within
a mesic hardwood forest cove. The riparian plant community most closely resembles a
M
All
l
ontane
uvia
Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Canopy species
observed included American beech (Fagus grandifolia), black birch (Betula lenta), Eastern
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), red oak (Quercus rubra), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Subcanopy species included American holly (Ilex
opaca), iron wood (Carpinus caroliniana), and rosebay rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum). Herbaceous species included American alumroot (Heuchera americana), Aster
sp., Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides)
do
hobbl
(L
h
,
g
e
eucot
oe fontanesiana),
golden ragwort (Senecio aureus), lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides), sphagnum moss
(Sphagnum spp.), woodland stonecrop (Sedum ternatum), and Viola spp.
5.0 SITE WETLANDS

5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands

Jurisdictional wetland limits were defined using criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). As stipulated in this
manual
the presence of three clearl
defi
d
t
h
d
,
y
ne
parame
ers (
y
rophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology) are required for a wetland jurisdictional
determination.
Hydric soil limits were mapped in the field during September and November 2006, and
October 2007 by Licensed Soil Scientists. Extensive field surveys confirm the presence of
NCEEP 9
January 2008
1
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
eleven (11) small jurisdictional wetland areas within or adjacent to the conservation easement
of the project (Figure 4). Anticipated impacts to wetlands likely to result from stream
restoration activities will total less than 0.05 acre. Areas within the Site, which historically
may have contained jurisdictional wetlands have been significantly disturbed by compaction
due to agricultural practices; relocation, dredging, straightening, and rerouting of Site streams,
and are currently effectively drained below jurisdictional wetland hydrology thresholds,
except in small pockets adjacent to the stream channels.
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
Due to channel incision and manipulation of channel/floodplain cross-sections by land
managers over the years, overbank flooding regimes provide less frequent inundation of
adjacent terraces. Groundwater seeps from the adjacent hillsides do provide hydrology to
soils along the toe of slopes above the streamscape. The balance of hydrological inputs are
derived from surface flows and direct precipitation.
5.3 Soil Characteristics
Restorable portions of the Site are underlain by hydric Nikwasi, Hemphill, or taxadjuncts of
those series. Soils have been impacted by plowing, land clearing, ditching, agricultural
production and concentrated cattle use.
5.4 Plant Community Characterization
Historically speaking, it may be unlikely that a substantial wetland complex existed on-site.
Topographic relief of the site may have been too severe to retain large areas of surface
hydrology for prolonged periods of time. However, the presence of hydric soil deposits
beyond the boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands suggests one possible explanation for how a
wetland complex became established. Beaver activity could have facilitated the site's ability
to store water for extensive periods of time, sufficient to result in the development of hydric
soil characteristics and the ensuing development of a hydrophytic plant community. However,
during the intervening colonial era, it is very likely that the beaver population was decimated
and agricultural activities came to dominate the shape and character of this small valley.
Wetland complexes that may have expanded and flourished during the pre-colonial era
probably declined in size thereafter due to the loss of hydrology that would result from
agricultural maintenance practices. Consequently, the riparian community may have changed
dramatically in response to the declining levels of soil saturation experienced at the site. It is
entirely possible that the site has transitioned from features similar to a swamp forest-bog
complex to a hillside seepage bog and then to a mixed mesic forest with a narrow riparian
ecotone. Forests along the hillsides east of the main channel and north of Reach 2 are typical
of rich cove forests.
NCEEP 10 January 2008

MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
6.0 SITE RESTORATION PLAN
6.1 Restoration Goals and Objectives
The following goals are established to guide the restoration process for the project:
1.) Improve local water quality within the restored channel reaches as well as the
downstream watercourses through: (a) the reduction of current channel and off-site
sediment loads by restoring appropriately sized channels with stable beds and banks,
(b) the reduction of nutrient loads from adjacent agricultural fields with restored
riparian wetlands and a restored riparian buffer, (c) the reduction of water
temperatures provided through shading of the channel by canopy species along with
the resultant increase in oxygen content, and (d) restoration of select stream reaches
away from adjacent roads thereby providing an appropriate buffer to reduce
contaminants from vehicular traffic.
2.) Improve local aquatic and terrestrial habitat and diversity within the restored channels
and their vicinity through: (a) the restoration of appropriate bed form to provide
habitat for fish, amphibian, and benthic species, (b) the restoration of riparian wetlands
along the stream corridor to provide additional landscape and habitat diversity, (c) the
restoration of a suitable riparian buffer corridor in order to provide both vertical and
horizontal structure and connectivity with adjacent upland areas, and (d) the
restoration of understory and canopy species in order to provide forage, cover, and
nesting for a variety of mammals, reptiles, and avian species.
3.) Preclude the construction of additional infrastructure and the combination of
agricultural practices including cattle grazing and the application of pesticides and
fertilizer within the riparian buffer area by providing a permanent conservation
easement.
Through the proposed restoration activities, the following objectives will be accomplished:
1.) Provide approximately 3,748 stream mitigation units (SMU's) through Priority 1
and 2 restoration of approximately 3,483 linear feet of stream and enhancement of
approximately 530 linear feet of stream.
2.) Restore natural stable channel morphology and proper sediment transport capacity.
3.) Create and/or improve bed form diversity and improve aquatic and benthic
macroinvertebrate habitat.
4.) Construct a floodplain (or local bankfull bench) that is accessible at the proposed
bankfull channel elevation.
5.) Improve channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in-stream structures and
native bank vegetation.
6.) Provide approximately 0.83 wetland mitigation units (WMU's) through restoration
of approximately 0.60 acres of wetlands and enhancement of 0.46 acres of wetlands.
7.) Provide approximately 9.5 acres of riparian buffer by establishing a native forested
and herbaceous riparian buffer plant community within a minimum width of 30 feet
from the edge of the restored channels. This new community will be established in
conjunction with the eradication of any existing exotic and/or undesirable plant
species.
8.) Improve water quality within the subject channels and the downstream receiving
waters.
NCEEP 11
January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
9.) Supplement the education and conservation efforts for natural resources in Haywood
County as indicated in program goals for the local Soil & Water Conservation District
and the NC Cooperative Extension Service.
6.2 Proposed Channel Design and Classification
Restoration and enhancement practices proposed for this project have been designed with the
intent to minimize unnecessary disturbance to adjacent land and to protect mature riparian
vegetation where it exists. Consideration was given to the potential functional lift provided
by restoration activities in comparison to the functional lift that could be realized through the
natural process of channel evolution. Included in this consideration was an attempt to
determine the disturbance and sedimentation that could occur as a result of this natural
process. In the absence of established methodology, best professional judgment has been
used to determine which channel reaches could potentially benefit most from preservation or
enhancement over full restoration. Where restoration was determined to be warranted,
consideration was given to which reaches could best be served by maintaining as much of the
existing channel pattern as possible.
The proposed reaches of Morgan Creek and its tributaries are designed as Type B4 and Type
134a streams. This channel configuration provides the most stable and natural form in the
moderately sloping colluvial valleys that are found throughout the SITE. Not only does it
effectively convey bankfull discharge and sediment load but also conforms to the natural
conveyance of flood flows. Additionally, since broad alluvial valleys are not found within the
SITE, the lower sinuosity of the Type B4 streams will result in minimizing grading and
earthwork activities. Although there is a broader valley present on the lower reach of Morgan
Creek, this valley does not represent an alluvial form, but instead a gentle sloping colluvial
terrace. The proposed channel dimensions, patterns, and profiles are based on hydraulic
relationships and morphologic dimensionless ratios of the reference reaches (See Table VI).
The proposed typical sections and channel alignments are shown in the design sheets
(Appendix I).
The installation of rock and wood structures will be utilized throughout the restored reaches
of the SITE. Rock cross vanes will be used for grade control to prevent headcut formation.
Log vanes with rootwads will be installed in meander bends to direct the flow away from the
outside of the bend and provide toe and bank protection. On-site material including bed
material, boulders, and logs will be used to the maximum extent possible.
6.2.1 Proposed Morgan Creek
The existing incised and unstable condition of Morgan Creek provided justification for
consideration of full reconstruction and restoration of the stream. Consideration was given to
pursuing a passive approach and allowing the channel to evolve towards its preferred natural
state, however, on-site conditions dissuaded this approach. Observations of the existing
channel provide analogues of the natural evolutionary process that suggest the stream will
widen the present low flow channel significantly as vegetation matures. It is apparent that the
natural process involves the eventual growth and maturity of woody vegetation which will
NCEEP 12 January 2008

MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
' shade out and limit the presence of herbaceous and woody groundcover vegetation that
tentatively holds depositional silt and sand in place on the bed of the channel. The inevitable
loss of this groundcover will result in the widening of the low flow channel, release of the
stored depositional material, and increased bank toe stress. This process will result in
increased bank instability and significant sediment output. This observation along with a
relatively sparse riparian buffer and few mature trees provided validation for full restoration.
The proposed design concept for Morgan Creek is Priority II restoration of a Type B4
channel. Due to the higher gradient and narrower valley of the upper portion of Morgan
Creek, the sinuosity and meander belt width will be somewhat lower. The pattern will
generally follow the existing channel location except where it is necessary to deviate for
additional stability. The downstream portion of Morgan Creek consists of a broader valley
with a lower gradient, allowing for the relocation of the channel where appropriate to position
the channel in the lower portion of the valley.
6.2.2 Proposed North, Lower North and South Branches
Both North and South Branch exhibit significant instability without mature riparian vegetation
and as such are proposed for Priority II restoration of a Type B4a stream. This channel
configuration represents a stream with low sinuosity through a narrow valley with a
moderately steep gradient. On South Branch clay plugs will be installed in order to raise the
existing bed and restrict future seepage of flow through the backfill. Log and rock structures
will be used to maintain the bed stability. The proposed restored stream type for Lower North
Branch is a Type B4 stream. This portion of the channel will begin at the existing pipe outfall
and will follow the natural slope of the valley to its confluence with the relocated reach of
Morgan Creek.
6.2.3 Proposed Middle Branch
t
t
t
Middle Branch was considered for full restoration due to its vertical instability. However
there is a substantial riparian buffer containing many mature trees along this reach. It was
determined that Priority I or II restoration would involve an unacceptable level of disturbance.
The design concept therefore calls for enhancement activities on Middle Branch that will not
involve any modification to the existing pattern. A low-impact approach will be used to arrest
the head-cuts through the installation of brush mattresses, soil lifts, and live stakings.
6.3 Sediment Transport Analysis
The design sections were evaluated for their competency to transport the sediment supplied by
the watershed. Critical shear stress was calculated for each design section and related to
particle sizes expected to be mobilized. These predicted particle sizes were compared to the
caliber of the bed material found in the existing channels. Generally, bed material throughout
the SITE is composed of particles with a D50 of 27 mm to 30 mm, and a D84 of 120 mm. The
proposed channels were designed to mobilize particles in the 100 mm to 300 mm range and
the target critical shear stress was 2 lb/ft2 with a range of 1.2 to 2.2 lb/ft2 (See Table VIII).
NCEEP 13
January 2008

MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
6.4 Hydraulic Analysis
RESTORATION PLAN I
The proposed channel sections were evaluated for their ability to convey the bankfull flows
and the flood flows of the watershed by performing a hydraulic analysis. The analysis
consisted of first modeling the existing conditions with the HEC-RAS water surface profile
model. Cross sections were taken through the channel and the adjacent valley at
representative locations throughout the project reach. Existing hydraulic conditions were
evaluated and the model calibrated based on available site data. Proposed conditions were
analyzed by revising the existing sections based on the proposed channel geometry and by
revising the model to reflect proposed pattern conditions and anticipated future roughness
coefficients. Comparison of the existing and proposed HEC-RAS models provide assistance
in the analysis of the sediment transport, bankfull flow capacity, and confirmation that there
will be no hydraulic trespass onto adjacent properties.
6.5 Proposed Wetland Restoration
The non jurisdictional areas underlain by hydric soils (Figure 4) are deprived of sufficient
hydrology to maintain jurisdictional status. Some portion of this hydric soil complex began to
lose hydrology in response to the farmers' attempts to straighten and deepen the channel, and
possibly in response to the loss of beaver from the area. Channel restoration will reestablish a
greater dependency between the floodplain and the channel. Overbank flooding and better
utilization of nearby seepage hydrology will provide the needed hydrology to sustain these
hydric soil zones as jurisdictional wetlands.
Areas where jurisdictional wetlands presently occur will be enhanced by the planting of
appropriate woody and herbaceous plantings. Generations of land-use, which modified the
stream channels to promote the removal of water from the pasture complex as efficiently as
possible, while simultaneously encouraging cattle to access the streams directly has taken a
dramatic toll on the quality and stability of the stream channels and on the integrity of the
riparian community, including its limited wetland areas.
Whether restoration, or enhancement, each wetland area will be planted with species
appropriate to the ecoregion and will promote the functionality of the wetlands as integral
parts of the riparian corridor. Plants adapted to growth in wetlands and that provide important
wildlife habitat values will be installed throughout the wetland areas.
6.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Buffer restoration activities will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of
imported elements and compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife
habitat. Riparian vegetation will be restored within approximately 9.5 acres of the SITE.
Planting vegetation on the stream banks is proposed to re-establish vegetation community
patterns within the stream corridor, associated side slopes, and transition areas. Replanting
the floodplain and stream banks is expected to provide stream bank stability, shade and cool
NCEEP 14 January 2008
' MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
surface waters, filter pollutants from adjacent runoff, and provide habitat for area wildlife.
The vegetated stream buffer will extend a minimum of 30 feet on both sides of the stream
with the typical buffer being more than 50 feet.
Throughout the majority of the SITE the target community will be a Montane Alluvial Forest.
Bare root tree seedlings will be planted within specified areas at a density of 436 stems per
acre. To provide structural diversity, native shrubs will also be incorporated in the buffers at
a density of 681 stems per acre. Shrubs will be installed in small groups of 2 to 3 individuals
with random placement of groups to establish a more natural appearance. On the stream
banks, live stakes and/or bare root stock will be used along with native herbaceous seed mix.
Live stakes and/or seedlings will be placed at a density of 2 to 4 stakes per square yard. See
Table IX for the list of plant species according to planting zones.
6.6.1 On-Site Invasive Species Management
Prior to re-vegetation of the SITE, non-native invasive species will be removed from the SITE
within the conservation easement boundary. Invasive species management will continue
through the 5-year monitoring period. Management procedures will conform to the
recommendation in the Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Manual. Non-
native invasive species currently present on the SITE include multiflora rose, blackberry,
kudzu, and honeysuckle.
7.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The stream restoration monitoring will be in accordance with the EEP Site Specific Mitigation
Plan and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Monitoring will consist of collection and analysis of stream stability and vegetation survival
data on an annual basis for at least five years. Monitoring will include measurement of
channel dimension and bed material, evaluation of photographs, vegetation sampling, and
monitoring of bankfull occurrences.

t
t
7.1 Streams and Wetlands
Data collected for monitoring will be evaluated to determine whether significant deviation
from the as-built condition has occurred and if the channel adjustments are trending toward
greater stability. Data collection will consist of detailed dimension and pattern measurements,
longitudinal profile, and bed material samples. Data evaluation will include calculation and
comparison of dimensionless ratios. Bed material should indicate a reduction in the
percentage of fine sediments and a particle distribution in the target range of D50 of 30 mm to
40 mm. Permanent photo station will be established to provide a visual record of channel
development.
Continuous-recording hydrological monitoring stations (piezometers) will be installed at
target locations within wetland restoration zones. Data from these gauges will be retrieved
monthly.
NCEEP 15
January ?008
1
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
7.2 Vegetation
Quantitative sampling plots for vegetation will be established in the riparian buffer restoration
areas. Vegetation plots will be inventoried following the first growing season after
installation. Permanent photo stations will be established for each sampling plot to provide a
visual record of vegetation development.
7.3 Schedule / Reporting
As-built plans will be submitted within 90 days following the completion of construction.
Monitoring will occur annually following the growing season for at least five consecutive
years. The monitoring period will also include the occurrence of at least two bankfull events.
A monitoring report will be prepared annually and will include tabulation of the collected
data, comparisons to previously collected data, and an evaluation of the stability and success
of the project. Each report will be submitted no later than December 315` of each monitoring
year.
NCEEP 16 January 2008
MORCAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
' 8.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, and LaRoe ET. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
' Division of Water Quality. 2005. Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams, Version 3.1. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
1 Resources.
Division of Water Quality, Planning Section, Classification and Standards Unit. July 2006.
' NC Stream Classification Schedules h_q://h'-)o.enr.state.ne.us/bims/rgports/rgportsWB.html
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Harmon, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and
J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Boxeman, MT.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. May 2006. Guide to Federally Listed Endangered
and Threatened Species of North Carolina. http://207.4.179.38/nhp North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology.
Schafale MP and Weakley AS. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environmental Management,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program.
Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERCC). 2006. Historical Climate Summaries for North
Carolina. http://www.sercc.com/climateinfo/historical/historical nc html
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in Cooperation with
the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Guilford County North
Carolina. h_q://websoilsurvev.nres usda ov/app/

t

NCEEP 17
January 2008
1
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
NCEEP 18 January 2008
I MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE

I

1
1
1
1
t

TABLES
RESTORATION PLAN
NCEEP
January 2008

MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
NCEEP - January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATIONPLAN
.: Tablet Restoration Structures and.Objective' s
Station`," ` ztesCng besigneclI
LAio Ion higaion Type Nocat on praach?' L??t AC ? k or Ac
,.
Morgan Creek - Reach 1 100+00 - 111+00 Restoration I & 11 1,096 L100
Morgan Creek - Reach 2 111+00- 120+00 Restoration II 820 846
Morgan Creek - Reach 3 120+00- 126+45 Restoration 11 636 645
Morgan Creek - Reach 3 126+45 - 128+10 Enhancement 165 165
Morgan Creek - Reach 3 128+10- 129+80 Restoration II 170 170
North Branch 200+00 - 204+15 Restoration II 289 375
Lower North Branch 500+00 - 501+49 Restoration 11 115 149
Middle Branch Entire Reach Enhancement 263 263
South Branch - Reach 1 400+00 - 401+98 Restoration 11 157 198
South Branch - Reach 2 401+98 - End Enhancement 102 102

A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K Enhancement 0.46 0.46
RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 Restoration 0.60 0.60

Morgan Creek - Reach 1 U/s End to North Branch 0.47
Morgan Creek - Reach 2 North Branch to D/s of South Branch 0.68
Morgan Creek - Reach 3 D/s of South Branch to D/s End of Site 0.71
North Branch U/s End to Confluence w/ UT 0.12
Lower North Branch Kirchpatrick Road to Confl. w/ Morgan Cr. 0.18
Middle Branch Entire Reach 0.004
South Branch Entire Reach 0.006
NCEEP January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RFRTOPATInN PI.4V
Table III.' Valley?Slopes,2
Stream'Reach Valley ongitudinal Slope galley Crass Slope
Morgan Creek - Reach 1 4 to 8 5 to 33
Morgan Creek - Reach 2 3 to 4 5 to 20
Morgan Creek - Reach 3 2 to 3 4 to 10
North Branch 6 to 8 10 to 44
Lower North Branch 4.5 7.5
Middle Branch 7 to 10 14 to 24
South Branch 11 to 13 15 to 30

Table IU4 'IVlapp cT Soils .

So?11?7ame
? Flap ?? r
Pea"cen#

I?ra?nage Clay

1 adz c las
Cullowhee-Nikwasi ClA 0 to 2 Poorly Di ained Hydric Inclusions
Dillsboro Loam DsB 2 to 8 Well Drained Non-Hydric
Evard-Cowee Complex EvE 30 to 50 Well Drained Non-Hydric
Fannin Loam FnE2 30 to 50 Well Drained Non-Hydric
Hayesville Clay Loam HaD2 15 to 30 Well Drained Non-Hydric a
Saunoook Loam SdD 15 to 30 Well Drained Non-Hydric
Udorthents Ud 0 to 15 Well Drained Non-Hydric

r
?1 T.?bie V T.za ??cl Use of;3?Vatersled

r

and Use.
Acres z -.7
Percent wzztara =?

Agricultural 153 33.0
Forested 299 64.4
Residential g 1.7
Roadway 4 0.9

Total 464 100.0
NCEEP
January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
'Table la. Morphologie Tab,
ae t f " P;
Existxitg;. s
Coriditioris _ ..' Reference
Reach '

ign -
eS
`
)earn Reaclz
` Morgan Creek

U/S Cold Springs.

Creek =
Morgan Reach 1
W$ki Ruch
Morgan Reach 3'
Stream Type C4b B4 B4 B4 B4
Drainage Area (mil) 0.47 2.77 0.47 0.68 0.71
Bankfull Width (ft) 15.2 23.4 13.2 15.0 15.2
Mean Depth (ft) 0.64 1.48 0.88 1.00 1.02
Bankfull XSAREA (ft) 9.5 34.6 11.6 15.0 15.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 68 210 56.7 75.1 77.6
Bkf Mean Velocity (ft/s) 7.2 6.1 4.9 5.0 5.1
Width/Depth Ratio 23.7 15.8 15 15 15
Max. Riffle Depth (ft) 1.2 2.2 1.22 1.37 1.39
Riffle Depth Ratio 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4
Max. Pool Depth (ft) 1.2 2.3 1.83 2.06 2.09
Pool Depth Ratio 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5
Flood Prone Width (ft) 50 48 21.5 24.5 24.8
Entrenchment Ratio 3.3 2.1 1.63 1.63 1.63
Bank Height Ratio 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length (ft) 200 100 98 108 133
Meander Length Ratio 13 4.3 7.4 7.2 8.7
Radius of Curvature (ft) 32 - 75 44 - 103 26 - 40 30 - 45 30 - 46
RcRatio 2.1-4.9 1.9-4.4 2-3 2-3 2-3
Belt Width (ft) 80 - 190 43 25 38 43
Meander Width Ratio 5- 13 1.8 1.9 2.5 2.8
Sinuosity 1.12 1.1 1.013 1.027 1.067
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.036 0.0238 0.043 0.038 0.027
Valley Slope (ft/ft) 0.037 0.025 0.043 0.038 0.029
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0312 0.025 0.043 0.038 0.027
Riffle Slope Ratio 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
Pool Slope (ft/ft) 0.018 0.0025 0.0043 0.0038 0.0027
Pool Slope Ratio 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Pool Width (ft) 12.8 29.6 13.2 15.0 15.2
Pool Width Ratio 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0
Pool Spacing (ft) 52 - 485 51 - 113 27 - 66 45 - 75 46 - 91
Pool Spacing Ratio 3-32 2.2-4.8 2-5 3 -5 3-6
D50 (mm) 58 31 60 60 60
D8, (mm) - 120 120 120 120
NCEEP January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATION PLAN
I.Existing R?ferericeD
' TaU1e VIb.:Itilorphblosic Talile `',
Condit,oris :°Iteach es?gn
IJ7
North Branch Us
? Lo
w?r North
ream,l?each ? North Branch North Branch" ,
Ref. Branch - "
. F;; _...... .,
Stream Type A4 B4a Boa B4c
Drainage Area (mil) 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.18
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.1 8.0 8.3 9.5
Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 0.52 0.56 0.63
Bankfull XSAUA (ft) 6.9 4.2 4.6 6.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 26 11.8 20.1 27.3
Bkf Mean Velocity (ft/s) 3.8 3.7 4.4 4.6
Width/Depth Ratio 7.1 15.4 15 15
Max. Riffle Depth (ft) 1.5 0.77 0.77 0.87
Riffle Depth Ratio 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4
Max. Pool Depth (ft) 1.5 0.95 1.16 1.31
Pool Depth Ratio 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.5
Flood Prone Width (ft) 14 11.6 13.5 15.5
Entrenchment Ratio 2.0 1.45 1.63 1.63
Bank Height Ratio 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length (ft) 41 29 41 46
Meander Length Ratio 5.8 3.6 4.9 4.8
Radius of Curvature (ft) 5-14 13 16 - 25 19 - 29
RcRatio 0.7-2.0 1.6 2-3 2-3
Belt Width (ft) 23 17 16 22
Meander Width Ratio 3.2 2.1 1.9 2.3
Sinuosity 1.05 1.07 1.016 1.059
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.078 0.126 0.051 0.015
Valley Slope (ft/ft) 0.051 0.135 0.052 0.015
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.078 0.142 0.051 0.015
Riffle Slope Ratio 1.0 1.13 1.0 1.0
Pool Slope (ft/ft) 0.033 0.0057 0.0051 0.0015
Pool Slope Ratio 0.4 0.05 0.1 0.1
Pool Width (ft) 5.8 8.4 8.3 9.5
Pool Width Ratio 0.8 1.05 1.0 1.0
Pool Spacing (ft) 95 68 16 - 25 28 - 57
Pool Spacing Ratio 13 8.5 2-3 3-6
D50 (mm) 27 27 27 -
27
D84 (=) - - - -
NCEEP
January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
s
`Table'VIe. Morpliolo;ic Table
" Existuig
Cond?izons Reference
Ruch ?

lass n

"
am",Reach'
n
South'Branch .<
North. BMc T s
, Ref '777777

South branch 777777
Stream Type F4 B4a B4a
Drainage Area (mil) 0.10 0.006
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.9 8.0 3.0
Mean Depth (ft) 0.17 0.52 0.20
Bankfull XSAREA (ft) 0.86 4.2 0.60
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 3.0 11.8 2.06
Bkf Mean Velocity (ft/s) 3.5 3.7 3.4
Width/Depth Ratio 29 15.4 15
Max. Riffle Depth (ft) 0.35 0.77 0.30
Riffle Depth Ratio 2.1 1.5 1.5
Max. Pool Depth (ft) 0.65 0.95 0.45
Pool Depth Ratio 3.8 1.8 1.5
Flood Prone Width (ft) 9 11.6 4.9
Entrenchment Ratio 1.0- 1.8 1.45 1.63
Bank Height Ratio 2.3-4.5 1.0 1.0
Meander Length (ft) 29 29 14
Meander Length Ratio 6 3.6 4.7
Radius of Curvature (ft) 5-23 13 6-9
RcRatio 1.0-4.7 1.6 2-3
Belt Width (ft) 28 17 5
Meander Width Ratio 5.7 2.1 1.7
Sinuosity 1.01 1.07 1.032
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.090 0.126 0.100
Valley Slope (ft/ft) 0.091 0.135 0.103
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.105 0.142 0.100
Riffle Slope Ratio 1.16 1.13 1.0
Pool Slope (ft/ft) 0.033 0.0057 0.010
Pool Slope Ratio 0.37 0.05 0.1
Pool Width (ft) 5.4 8.4 3.0
Pool Width Ratio 1.1 1.05 1.0
Pool Spacing (ft) 48 68 6-9
Pool Spacing Ratio 9.8 8.5 2-3
D50 (mm) 4.3 27 10
D84 (mm) _ _ _
NCEEP
January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
w re,
Table Vll. Sediment Transport Analysts
I?ocahon .
Wetted
Pzneter (f#)
Hvdraulrc
. Racizus ():
chan el ?
Slopti
Shear Stress
(lb/ft'.?
? Predicted Particle
Range (zn?a?..
Morgan Creek - Reach 1 14 0.83 0.043 4.46 102-683
Morgan Creek - Reach 2 15.9 0.94 0.038 4.47 102-681
Morgan Creek - Reach 3 16.1 0.96 0.027 3.22 75-481
North Branch 8.8 0.52 0.051 3.33 78-500
Lower North Branch 10.1 0.6 0.015 1.12 26-107
Middle Branch 2.7 0.16 0.11 2.31 54-319
South Branch 3.2 0.19 0.1 2.37 55-330

Table :4 C11 Wetland Impacts

tland Rubel Wetland Area tea Ing,de asetne% Area of
1n
I

:;
tAc
Ai:
Irn
act pac t
ke
: _
p
A 0.054 0.052 0.007
B 0.054 0.000 0.0
C 0.035 0.035 0.0
D 0.019 0.019 0.008 Cut
E 0.095 0.074 0.007 Cut
F 0.157 0.113 0.010 Cut
G 0.048 0.023 0.0
H 0.029 0.029 0.004 Cut
I 0.074 0.074 0.0
J 0.017 0.017 0.0
K 0.079 0.079 0.015 Cut

Total 0.661 0.51; 0.0;0
NCEEP January 2008
I MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
Shrubs
Black Willow (Salix nigra )
Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata )
Silky Willow (Salixsericea)
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis )
Trees
Basswood (Tilia americana )
Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis )
Sugar Maple (Ater saccharum )
Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera )
American Beech (Fagus grandifolia )
Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra )
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana )
Staghom Sumac (Rhus typhina )
Smooth Servicebetry (Amelanchier laevis )
Common Silverbell (Halesia tetraptera )
Sassafras (Sassafras albidum )
Chestnut Oak (Quercus prinus )
Trees
Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis )
Bittemut Hickory (Carya cordiformis )
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis )
Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera )
River Birch (Betula nigra )
Black Willow (Salix nigra )
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana )
Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis )
Pawpaw (Asimina triloba )
Herbs/Seed Mixture
Ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis )
Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum )
Broomstraw (Andropogon virginicus )
Deertongue (Panicum clandestinum )
Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum )
Shrubs
Wild Hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens )
Spicebush (Lindera benzoin )
Sweet-shrub (Calycanthus floridus )
Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginiana )
Shrubs
Chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia )
Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginiana )
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum )
Mountain Doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana )
Herbs/Seed Mixture
Ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis )
Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans )
Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum )
Eastern Gama Grass (Tripsacum dactyloides )
Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum )
Herbs/Seed Mixture
Virginia Wild Rye (Elymus virginicus )
Fox Sedge (Carex vulpinoidea )
Smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum )
Bladder Sedge (Carex intumescens )
Soft Stem Rush (Juncus effusus )
Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus )
New York Ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis )
Joe-Pye-Weed (Eupatoriadelphus maculatus )
Great Blue Lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica )
I I NCEEP January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
FIGURES
NCEEP January 2008
--
f REFERENCE REACH
' Sn..blld $ ?l SITE -9
c
' M O d N T A I\_\N? 5 0
/ - HARMON S J, V J Rough Knob 4,
1 `_ J za O
1334
J w-
I DEN ?°' L1gILJLIFE 1336
t , Pug Knob
\ `• MA?AGEMENT
04 H Tres Knob \ 1379 ,
Buaard Roost Q MA \ :-1 :;
\t I
t\ I -133 1 1334 `
PJ S G A H MORGAN CREEK
7380 e ?etisveSYS?
RESTORATION SITE
1 ?r,
_ \ G a3 , 134E 334 ? - ?,
1343 n; F" ylm
' 134 as 1337
NA_j ONA4 o 1 _
34 - - 1?
Pinar reek \ H
I \ a ` y q„y \ 1341 34 ? \ . lC
1397 1382' .5 50` 15051
, ?.
x,
15 p
/ ?134 1 13 5 ? ( 13511 Crabtree Said
o
\ ,? I El- 5,680
LAKE ??
WATERVILLE
353 Oak Mtn `
O \ 1 y
\\ V ? 1338N 1396
1341 ? 1 6
_ r p\ 1 1507 n g '
\ - 1346 ° 1386 , .4
1354 1503
1338 352
1505
O K Y 13 1346 2 Panther Creek O
d ? - J 1.2 1355 f, 11624 ti
Canadian Top 1348 .6 P cFtg 1508
Elav 4.118 lhTf / - 't .1 - -
9 \ 1338 t3 o 160 m1509 _
FOREST ``151
Cove Creek Gap
1 El-4,062 - \ 1 1509 3T
S-Y
,,s cr 4g Mtn >,. Crabtree
I N cr 1 `'Cove Cree
Chambers 154
Svc ? Mtri
1331 I
A T 1 O N A L. 133 Va
0 High Top ?'x.711', Y 1 LLE
)Purchase Knob
Jonathan ,
- - .1319
PAR K ` 13181 3171 131 4 Utah Mm CLYDE 11
OP. 1,35E
Ca krochee , y 1314 / • \ '
Isam ( 1316^ 1/} r 1P' --- _
315
Little ?b Kneb u1.4.eek
Elev?5,677 Pa ?.
PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: AND BY:
SCALE SITE VICINITY MAP
MORGAN CREEK ESTORATION SITE
0 1 3 HAYWOOD CO NTYR NORTH CAROLINA
MILES FIGURE 1
a# s _.
coL ; r Q - MPRGAN CREEK RESTORATION
?` ro SJT? WATERSHED AREA
a 2
f RROJET
?•> ; _ J 7'
DRAINAGE :A? EA = d.'Z 25 SQ M1
E t /
i ?? f i r ?. J `reed I 1 `cam F >' "?'? _
V
PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: AND BY:
SCALE WATERSHED MAP
500 0 1000 3000
a' MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
?Wo?FCree? HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
r - FEET FIGURE 2
r
x
a?
IW- a Eo N O
iIF u D ?_ O p o -1 O
m s QJa Z? m -X Ev >,E
/
Li M
p m > 1Syz p f-? 0 LLJ? ?o?EUO Q O
p i W `?1vu W (n -? ?O? I J 3 0 Z W
a? o a? w
w Z)
Q 4-.W w wc~n Qom s oc? ?y o? J
Q
W Cl- Q Q J o?- 'c ct O Y
0-1 ?.?°pov? (n wO
a- 0 W>L?=LnZ) c,U
9O;
NN OQ
Q m W W 0 0
xU) >cv-0 -0
x f; `ur rw'ya , " d" ham,,^ n ' &Jr'
m = = m = = r = m = r i m m = m

0
y

3 kv

x ?f
?.
* RV
'Sc
t4 "
vN,
"t

- F ' `1 Aq`

e

F
'
yF 2
?
?: f ? f
9 2 P ?i t

An } r,y

m = = = = = r = = = = m
' MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE

Appendix A
SITE Photographs

RESTORATION PLAN
NCEEP January 2008

Photo 1 - Reach 1, Limited channel facets, undercut
banks, invasive species (Rosa multiflora)

? Y ;

1
Photo 2 - Reach 1, Hoofshear on banks, no riparian buffer or
cattle exclusion, previously impacted riparian wetlands

Photo 3 - Reach 1, Over widened channel section, no riparian buffer,
no cattle exclusion, note barn (since removed) in background

Oil
5

• " .

L.
Photo 4 - Reach 1, Limited sinuosity, over widened section,
erosion, due to hoofshear, cattle paddock on left of photo

Photo 5 - Reach 1, Existing cattle and vehicle crossing, over
widened and unmaintained
Photo 6 - Reach 1, Downstream of cattle crossing, severely incised
stream segment, channel previously relocated and straightened,
previously impacted wetland in background

?#r
+•.
?
`
• -... "
,
.
?,? ? y
? "`
k ,?' ?..: r
. y. ?'. is qe

A
lob-_

Photo 7 - Reach 1, Over widened section, bank erosion
due to hoofshear, stream relocated to toe of steep slope
Photo 8 - Previously disturbed wetland area proposed for
restoration, looking downstream along Reach 1,
vicinity of barn (since removed)
L
Photo 9 - Previously disturbed wetland area proposed for
restoration, looking downstream near lower end of Reach 1
?Fn
w.
Photo 10 - Previously disturbed wetland area proposed for
restoration, looking east toward mid-point along Reach 1

Photo I I - Reach 2, Incised channel with actively eroding banks,
Multiple avulsions and mid-channel bars, no woody vegetation
Photo 12 - Reach 2, Incised channel with actively eroding and
Undercut banks, limited buffer and no woody vegetation
t
Photo 13 - Reach 3, Incised channel with actively eroding
and undercut banks
Photo 14 - Reach 4, Incised channel with actively eroding and
Undercut banks, limited buffer and no woody vegetation
along right bank
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
Appendix B
Existing SITE Stream Data
RESTORATION PLAN
NCEEP -
January 2008
dimensions
11.9 x-section area 1.2 d mean
10.2 width 11.9 wet P
2.3 d max 1.0 hyd radi
3.2 bank ht 87 w/d ratio
50 G ?V flouud prone Urea 4 9 ent ratio
hydraulics
5.8 velocity ft/sec

68.8 _
discharge rate, Q cfs)
1.93 shear stress Ibs/ft sq
1.00 shear velocity ft/sec)
13.114 unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec)
0.89 Froude number
5 8 friction factor u/u'
-
')(50 7 tI whold r,r II sire (min)
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
Riffle Morgan Creek on-site reference
95.5
95
94.5
94
93.5
G
°- 93
92.5
W
92
91.5
91
90.5
-- ---- - -- -- ----- ----
i
i
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Morgan Creek on-site reference
of instrument
II top of t
93.425
93.01
92.56
91.65
91.34
91.4
91.31
91.18
91.27
91.375
92.33
92.81

dimensions
15.0 x-section area 1.2 d mean
12.3 width 13.5 wet P
1.6 d max 1.1 h yd radi
0.0 bank ht 10.1 w/d ratio
23.0 W flood prone area 1.9 ent ratio
hydraulics
6.1 velocity ft/sec
90.8 discharge rate, Q cfs)
2.04 shear stress Ibs/ft s
1.03 shear velocity ft/sec
13
642 unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec

4
0
Froude
number
9
L5
.8 8 (llletitl()i(1 )f ]if. I: t', ?nllll)
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
Pool Morgan Creek on-site reference
x
0
m I
w
? , I I
- f
I I I
-30 -20 -10
of instrument
0 10 20 30
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Morgan Creek on-site reference
96.84
96.15
96.04
96.04
96.32
97.94
98.145
98.255
98.34
dimensions
10.9 x-section area 1.0 d mean
10.5 width 12.4 wet P
2.0 d max 0.9 h yd radi
2 8 bank ht

96.915 -
98.95
99.055
98.85
98.02
97.685
97.29
40 50 60
elevation bankfull top of bank slope (%)
100.405 r
993 98.02 98.85
99.03
hydraulics

2.63 shear stress Ibs/ft s
1.16 shear velocity ft/sec)

473 1 threshold grain size (mm)
low 99.68
101.06
? 101.035
dimensions
9.4 x-section area 0.6 d mean
16.9 width 17.6 wet P
1.7 d max 0.5 hyd radi
2.5 bank ht 30.5 w/d ratio
54.0 W Flood prone area 3.2 ent ratio
hydraulics
4.8 velocity ft/sec
44.7 discharge rate, Q (cfs
1.59 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.91 shear velocity fUsec
7.860 unit stream power Ibs/f /sec
1.26 Froude number
52 friction factor u/u'
I N (, 1hm hold grain size (mm)
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative roughness 0.0
EA
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
Riffle Morgan Creek on-site reference
96.5
96
95.5
95
94.5
c
° 94
W 93.5
93
92.5
92
91.5
i
i
- --t------ - -?- -- -- ---- - --- ----- -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
section:
Riffle
Morgan Creek on-site reference
description:
height of instrument (ft): + + +
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning',
otes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull too of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
5.7 x-section area 0.6 d mean
10.1 width 11.6 wet P
1.7 d max 0.5 hyd radi
2.2 bank ht 181 w/d ratio
0 ? "" food pi ,?r??.? 2 0 c l ratio
94.44
96.29
hydraulics
5.1 velocity ft/sec
28.9 discharge rate, 0 (cfs)
1.87 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.98 shear velocity (ft/sec)
10.849 unit stream power (lbs/fUsec)
1.43 Froude number
5.2 frirtion factor u/u*
245 hr :;fiu111 <?rain size (nim)
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
Riffle Morgan Creek on-site reference
97
9,6
95
F 94
c
°- 93
w 92
91
90
89
I I
i
0 5 10 15 20 25
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Morgan Creek on-site reference
of instrument
95.42
94.48
94.02
92.96
92.5
91.51
90.8
89.75
89.91
90.76
91.47
92.14
92.78
93.29
94.21
96.3
bankfull too of bank
30 35 40

dimensions
0.5 x-section area 0.3 d mean
1.4 width 1.8 wet P
0.5 d max 0.3 hyd radi
1 0 bank ht _ 4-2 w/d ratio
?d prone area 1 51 ent iatiu
hydraulics
4.5 velocity fUsec
2.0 discharge rate, Q cfs)
1.79 shear stress Ibs/ft sq
0.96 shear velocity ft/sec)
10
414 unit stream power (lbs/fL/sec)
88 Froude number
L
4
6 friction factor a/u"
2
? ? 4 ?n?e?shnld yr 3in size (nim)
check from channel material
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
99
98
97
r
96
0 95
TO 94
m
w 93
92
91
90
0
notes
Riffle Morgan Creek on-site reference
5 10 15 20 25
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
height of instrument
omitl distance 1 FS
Riffle
Morgan Creek on-site reference
elevation
98.42
97.55
97.05
96.48
96.01
95.57
94.89
94.83
94.2
93.78
92.45
91.99
91.65
90.94
90.79
90.79
92.19
92.96
93.87
94.51
94.99
95.19
95.75
FS FS W
bankfull top of bank
91.35 92.19
30 35
40
ening
dimensions
0.6
1.3
0.6
1.4
1.7
x -section area
0.4
2.0
0.3
3.0
1.3
d mean
wet P
width
d max
hyd radi
bank ht
w/d ratio
W flood prone area
ent ratio
hydraulics
4.7
velocity ft/sec
2.8
discharge rate, Q cfs)
1.90
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.99
shear velocity (ft/sec)
13.679
unit stream power (Ibs/ft/sec)
1.55
Froude number
4.7
friction factor u/u`
2542
Ithreshold grain size (mm)
check from channel material
0
0.0
measured D84 (mm)
relative roughness 0.0 frit. factor
0.000
Manning's n from channel material

3) Bulk Sample Sieve Analysis
Two samples may be entered below. Select sample type for each.
-Paint Bar

Sieve
Size
mm

Sieve
Weight
)
Sieve _8 J
Sample
Weight
)

Retained
on Sieve

Passing
Sieve
2 706 1125 419 28% - -
4 820 1568 748 50% 28% 28%
8 811 1047 236 16% 50% 77%
16 739 809 70 5% 16% 93%
32 739 757 18 1 % 5% 98%
64 682 698 16 1% 1% 99%
75 0 0% 1% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%

total wt retaine
d in sieves: 0 0%
1507 0% 100%
Note: Pavement Largest Particles: 75 8 72 mm
r P-Bar __.- . . _.?
Sieve 8
Sieve Sieve Sample Retained Passing
Size Weight Weight on Sieve Sieve
mm ) )
2 706 1755 1049 297 - --
4 820 1617 797 22% 29% 29%
8 811 1756 945 26% 22% 51%
16 739 1120 381 11% 26% 78%
32 739 945 206 6% 11% 88%
64 682 901 219 6% 6% 94%
85 0 0% 6% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
total: 3597
Note: Sub-Pavement Laraest Particles: 85 8 70 mm
Point Bar -
100%
90%
80%
c 70%
m
60%
d
w 50%-
40%
m
20%
10%
0%
-t-cumulat ve % -wt of particles passing sieve
800
--------------- ------ 700
1
I 600
I
1
1
500
-
I 400

I 1

I
300
I
I i 200

I I

I
100
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
particle size (mm)
F
m
0
v
H
Size (mm)
D16 - D65 6.7 sand 100%
D35 4.4 D84 11
D50 5.5 D95 21
Point Bar --
--F-cumulative % -wt of particles passing sieve
1
5
v
10%
10%
_______________ __ ________
w% 1
0%
1
10%
I
o% I
I
i0% I
1
% I
0%
a o%
1200
1000
800 F
800
400
200
0
.1 1 10 100 1000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16 -- D65 11
D35 4.8 D84 24
D50 7.7 D95 67
dimensions
17.2 x-section area 1.0 d mean
17.8 width 18.7 wet P
1.8 d max 0.9 h yd radi
00 bank ht 18.4 w/d ratio
0.0 W flood prone area 0.0 ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0 velocity ft/sec)
0.0 discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft sq)
0.00 shear velocity ft/sec)
0.000 unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u`
8 0 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
69 measured D84 (mm)
4.3 relative roughness 6.4 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
Appendix C
NCDWQ Stream Forms
N(.EEP
January 2008

t

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 10/ 1 4/2006 Project: Morgan Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: J. Regan * A. Genuncg Site: Reach I Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 47.75 Count Other
if? 19 or erennial if i- 30 y` Haywood e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=_ 26.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
man-mane ancnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 10 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 O3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal= 1 1 .2 5 t
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 H1_ 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = .7 OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
items cu anu c i tocus on ine presence of upiana plants, item 29 tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
1
1
1

s
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1 0/ 1 4/2006 Project: Morgan Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: J. Regan * A. Genuncg Site: Reach 2 Longitude:
Total Points: 5 Other
Stream is at least intermittent 4 I .7 County: Ha WooG?
if>_ 19 or perennial if? 30 y e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_ 22 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 10
1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 O
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 9.75 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
items zu ana ci rocus on me presence of uplana plants, item zu focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1 0/ 1 412006 Project: Morgan Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: J. Regan * A. Genung Site: Reach 3 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent 3 1 - 5 County: H a WOoGI
if? 19 or perennial if>_ 30 y e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_ 16 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
CE D 0
Yes = 3
man-maae ancnes are not ratea; see alscusslons in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Suhtotal = 10
1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 O
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es = 1.5
C. Biologv (Subtotal = 5.5 )
20 . Fibrous roots in channei 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other 0
items zu ano zi tocus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1 0/ 1 412000 Project: Morgan Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: J. Regan * A. Genuncg Site: Reach 4 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intemtittent 3 2 County: Haywood
if> 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_ I G ) Absent - Weak Moderate " Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel o 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
a..
No = 0
Yes = 3
Ma11911aue UILUne5 are nUL raCea; see aiscussions in manuai
B. Hvdroloav (Suhtotal = 10. 5 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 O
16. Leaflitter 1. 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal= 5.5 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other 0
Uu UIV pieaei ice ui upianu prams, nem za rocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATIONPLAN
Appendix D
Reference Reach Photographs
NCEEP
January 2008
MORGAN CREEK RES'T'ORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
Cold Springs Creek Cross Section 1 - Riffle
NCEEP November 2007
Cold Springs Creek Cross Section 2 - Pool

MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
NCEEP
November 2007
Cold Springs Creek Cross Section 3 - Riffle
Cold Springs Creek Cross Section 4 - Pool
p-
Photo 1 - Reference Reach 2

' ?.

Photo 2 - Reference Reach 2
NCEEP OCTOBER 2007
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
Appendix E
Reference Reach Data
RESTORATION PLAN
' NCEEP January 2008

Cold Springs Creek
Watershed:
Pigeon River
Location:,
Pisgah National Forest, Harmon Den,
1-40 Exit 7
Latitude:
35.76352
Longitude,;
82.97678
Stater
North Carolina
County:
Haywood
Date:
October 25, 2007
Observers:
SGG & CME
Channel type.
B4
Drainage area (sq.mi;)>
2.77
notes:
--
Oimo�nsio,n bankfull.channel
typical
mini
Max
floodplain width flood prone area (ft)
48.0
43.0
52.0
bank helm t (ft)
_ 3.3
3.1
3.5
riffle run: y x -area bankfull (sq.fQ
34.6
33.4
34.6
width bankfull (ft)
23.4
23.4
24.7
mean depth (ft)
1.48
1.3
1.5
max depth (ft)
2.2
1.8
2.2
hydraulic radius �ft
1.3
pool x -area pool (sq.ft.)
33.4
30.0
33.4
width pool (ft)
29.6
25.2
29.6
max depth pool;m ,
2.3
2.3
2.3
hydraulic radius`'1ti'
1.1
0imeosionless ratios!,
width depth rat'
entrenchment r�tl
15.8
2.1
15.8
1.8
18.4
2.2
riffle max depth ratio;
height ratid
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
pool area ratio
1.0
0.9
1.0
pool width ratio
1.3
1.1
1.3
pool max depth ratio
1.6
1.5
1.6
hydraulics: typical
min 'k,
discharge rate (cfs) I-1 U_0
Zn? 1
218.6
_ channel slope % 2,1
riffle -run
min
max
pooh
velocity (ftfs)
6.1
6.1
6.3
6.3
Froudo number
0.94
0.94
0.95
1.12
shear stress (lbs/sq.ft.)
1.947
1.920
2.043
1.647
shear velocity (ft/s)
1.002
0.995
1.027
0.922
stream power (Ib/s)
314,5
302.7
327.4
unit stream power (Ib/fUs)
13.440
12.131
13.866
relative roughness
10.0
-
--
friction factor u/u"
6.1
5.9
6.2
threshold grain size (1"=0.06) (mm)
100.4
94.3
100.4
_ Shield's pararn6ter,
0.128

Fi
bb5'tn+� :CS�
AMR
S
.k` •�5-
.�1
�k�• �'.{"'.
R f`A
k
s 7'.
meander length (ft)
100.0
---
belt width (ft)
43.0
-
--
amplitude (ft)
-
-
radius (ft)
75.0
44.0
103.0
arc angle (degrees)
-
-
stream length (ft)
400.0
-valley length ft
380.0
Sinuosity
1.1
Meander Length Ratio
4.3
---
Meander Width Ratio
1.8
--
RadiusRatio
3.2
1.9
4.4
Profrle 4 w tFL
^`Tn n6ka '�
TaV
y • � 1 iv� tk '`'vH'
r ��t
.'Wl"
pool-pool spacing (ft)
87.0
51.0
113.0
riffle length (ft)
28.0
20.0
40.0
pool length (ft)
18.0
6.0
42.0
run length (ft)
9.7
5.0
14.0
glide length (ft)
---� -
10.7
5.0
20.0
channel slope (%)
2.38
riffle slope (%)
2.5
1.5
4.3
pool slope (%)
0.25
0.083
0.4
run slope (°lo)
5.1
1.4
8.1
_ glide sloe
0.81
0.2
2.3
measured valley slope (%°)
--
roalle sloQe f om sinuos %
2.5
Riffle Length Ratio
1.2
0.9
1.7
Pool Length Ratio
0.8
0.3
1.8
Run Length Ratio
0.4
0.2
0.6
Glide Length Ratio
0.5
0.2
0.9
Riffle Slope Ratio
1.1
0.6
1.8
Pool Slope Ratio
0.1
0
0.2
Run Slope Ratio
2.1
0.6
3-4
Glide Slope Ratio
0.3
0.1
1
Pool Spacing Ratio
3.7
2.2
4.8
Channel 1Vlaterials''
Riffle
" Po1nt , .Sk)'
d
AIX >,z� 1'
D16(mm)
5.2
30
3.3
D35 (mm)
22
--
7i ...... _ 15
D50 (mm)
45
---
79
31
D65 (mm)
75
-
87
62
D84 (mm)
130
a
99
120
D95mm}
190
110 `'
170
mean (nim)
26.0
19.9
dispersion
5.8
6.6
skewness
-0.2
-0.2
Shape Factor
---
% Silt/Clay
1%
0%
2%
% Sand
10%
100%
9%
%Gravel
48%
0111.
53%
Cobble
41%
-
0%
33%
• Boulder
0%
---
0%
0%
°/ Bedrock
1%-;
4%
% Clay Hardpan
-
%° Detritus/Wood
% Artificial
--
Largest Mobile rnrri)j
91

O
L m
v
?
N
N
iI ? I IM I I
a

J O
°
YI X v

2
N

m ? v
i I I I
C
C) L
W
o
F co
LO O O
a
M

N

m X ? eo co m
.= 0 0
O O M N N
C ?p O O O O
O cn I N OD ?O
M -0 0 0
? N
O
O
a
0? m
v
I 3
I
U
O C
?
N O
O V N
UJ °D O
U O) N (O ?
v

Y c .
Y

T O O O O n r -
?
U i 2 Q C O O OD O O

w O N
-

Ul
_
V
l
v

N
C
C
Q

X O
O
t
U) C C) ° U
`-
?

U - I
4 O
Y
X+
F
C?
m v
9 ?
I
? ? N M
? O

ea 0 0
} O 12
N Lc) CL ?- .- M
I

? O
O N O
N i m
3I
-o
a? t
s
r O M M

cD
O O V N
I c v p v p
N
CL O N N
X O M N N uj 00
I t/1 N O O
O O
L n0
o L N O C N
2P
? O
a
1 y
I
X
0
0
0
N O co cO C N O w cO
O
- O rn
- rn O rn rn 00 00
(11) U01lena13
E
E N
N o Q Uf ?

v U v
O U
E E 2 Q U= ?i

?
N c co m Y
? ? N m m a)
? ? y a U cn cn C
U 06
fn Cot7'M O
i X00 a)MOO
O
O N U- N N ?-
W LL
O
O

a)
_ _

O U U x
2 (
Q
cl,
O

Y .
`
C L
U)
L O

N L L O)m c
,? m C L U L
U C:
V' O O .t L O . L m m
a)
V 7
O
U >
O_
U L .Y -Y 0)>
C O C m m N C T j
C
U U
O a) -0 L U
(n C: - 3 Co m Q .? m
Cf)
(D 2

O N U

U
; ?

O N V' V N LO
0 LN N Cl) O O M M
LO O
} O LL LL
O
O
N
6
U ? U
w
O v
m a) (4 N a)
O P L4-f E L y (6 0
L a?! 7 t?a C:
C
Q. Q
0 ...
_ 6
a)
_
C U L L a) E2 L U L
a) M X _0 T a) m a) ° - oz;
X E E ?> L O> -O LL
o 0 LL
'
w O V N N a. ao v=3 M M Lo
Y V M N LO - m Y O co O
C M N N C N O
m m
co m
O
OP
co
0 N 0 0 t0 I- O LO r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 }
1
UoilenaI=l
0
N
r

E

N .-• Q ? L
_
O E E .= O T N
O E
O
Q
N N O N O

O N
O in > ?
R C
cn
O V O 3 tC6 N N !''
LO 00
C) C)
.L..

a U to N 7
? 06
FD

N o?
V (A
aD V O
NMr.rn
L N - 0 0
(6 U-
0
(0
O
O
IL
Y
N
N
U
N
O
C
Q.
U)
O
U
M
ti
t
O

? (c
6
N N V ¦
(n - 7
'? 7 to
.
`
(6
(6 L L N
O
O
? L L
O C .Q7 ? O co
C
? L U L

E L L N Ol
0 0 0 7
O
L N Q L Y Y
C: C: 0)> U
c
C

m a)
O C ca
O a) .n L U
a)
T ca >
C i 1n '
N > a) i
O
N E n

?
-0 N
ON V LO
0 M ri
-
VNrnco
o o L6
0 ?
o (V
O O
LL Ll.
O
a'
N O v
c4 V N ?
N ?
L U7 ?

E
U) C
o
C g 'a ? 6 -0?
U C N Y
U L_0
O
E UOi a) m a
x3EE3s3 o O O
>?L

O
LL L

, O N N M `- N w CO O N
O O
lC
C O U) N CO Y
M N N `- N C O
m co
0
O
d0 I? O ? rt M N ?
O O O O O O O O)
UoijeAG13
O
v
E
N c Q N
N v V
E E S?
(
EE
° oNUo
Q
O N Q n N O
n > E
a
c
Q L
m a) a> Y
Q Q
00
o C cl d v
(n 06
(n 00 N O
'- O (D M O O
N V ?2 O
LL
O
co

N fn x
V O U O
O (E C w 7 N
.
C6
(0 V LO N
.r- CU r
C CLD 2 -0 m ,-
N
d a)
O O
O
N
rn
O) ?
a U C C _? 1 C N
V O C (U (Q N T Y6 >
C
c -
3 0 O N U
? C Q ? (
N
? 0
CO >
a> X 0 0 0 N? ? N N
E
O
U

a) LO
O O I-- LO O V N O N
O
(V
l)
D Lo M
p C
M 3:
O p O
+
N
O
O-

cV O N ? -0

Q -c E
N
t
CU 0.
O
Q o N O_ SZ- N 0
io io (D
V) Z
-
C U C U4) (d L U L?a
0
N U T5 a) m LU X p U
0
Y x 3 E E 3 c 3 O> o
U-
V I'- M 00 co M V ,:3 `- d'
O
_.e M V LO 00 Y (O NO
c CO N N c N O
0 m m

Ln
(o (0 0
M Ln LO Ln V LO M LO N LO
M V O M O (V O
O O ? O O O
UOI]enaI:l
O
I-
O
O
N
70-
L L{) O
t?
(0
O
O
CL
N
U
m
C
Q
M
a
0
U
00
Ln
M
0
LO
E
E
a)
N
E E E2
O)
N a) -O
O
O Ir N
0 C
2i
cn
\° to
o N U O
0 Q
m > E
3 C N (0 _
O L L L C
a U ?/) fn 7
06
cn 00 r O O
0) Cl) LO 0)
i N - 0 0
O
LL
O
O 2 (0
tD
V
a
O c 'O U c C
O c m U
O N .7 0
N ? O O O
co o
r- r
0 O) N
O ? - N
O
LL
O
N
O
O
cn (3
N w to
O ? O C
O ? U t
O N -M O)
n a) p
? ? c O
a) c L U >
U U)
c (6 Q 'Fn
F N
a) LO co O N I .
0 LO N
00
LL

?' E n
cn
c c
(6 OL -c-
OL a a 7

a) c
O c Q) t?
.-
a?-0 T? a)
C a) ate'-' N ?x O U
E TX 3 E E 3 s .3 0 > a ?i
LL
:3 V CO - M r- r vim-
O
co
d7
?C
C M O - C,4 O
M N M N Y
C LO r-
O
N
m f0
m
W W W ? W 000 000 00
UOIIBn813
2) Weighted Pebble Count
Feature Percent of Reach
Riffle 29 % Run 21
Riffle, Pool, Run, Glide
_LI Pool 29 % Glide 21 %
Weighted pebble count by bed features
Material Size Range (mm) weighted
silt/clay 0 - 0.062 2.1
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125 0.0
fine sand 0.125 -0.25 0.5
medium sand 0.25 -0.5 3.8
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 3.2
very coarse sand 1 - 2 1.6
very fine gravel 2 - 4 6.8
fine gravel 4 - 6 3.8
fine gravel 6 -8 2.1
medium gravel 8 - 11 4.2
medium gravel 11 - 16 8.5
coarse gravel 16 - 22 5.4
coarse gravel 22 - 32 9.1
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 5.8
very coarse ravel 45 - 64 9.0
small cobble 64 - 90 9.6
medium cobble 90 - 128 11.7
large cobble 128 - 180 9.0
very large cobble 180 - 256 3.8
small boulder 256 - 362 0.0
small boulder 362 - 512 0.0
medium boulder 512 - 1024 0.0
large boulder 1024 - 2048 0.0
very large boulder 2048 - 4096 0.0
total particle weighted count: 100
bedrock 3.8
clay hardpan --------------- 0.0
detritus/wood ---------------- 0.0
artificial --------------- 0.0
total weighted count: 103.8
Note:
Weighted pebble count by bed features Cold Springs Creek
29 % riffle 29 % pool 21 % run 21 % glide
F --?eightedpercent ?-Riffle --Pool Run - Glide # of particles]
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder 14%
100%
90%
12%
80%
L
m 70% 10%
a
60%
c 8%
50% ---- ------- -- --- o

6%
m
0
8 40% a
a
30%
4% ?

m
20% 5
2%
10%

0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
U ro
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 3.3 mean 19.9 silt/clay 2% bedrock 4%
D35 15 dispersion 6,6 sand 9%
D50 31 skewness -0.15 gravel 53%
D65 62 cobble 33%
D84 120 boulder 0%
17Q

Riffle
Material Size Range (mm)
Count
silt/cla 0 -0.062 2
very fine sand 0.062 - 0125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 1
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 1
very coarse sand 1 - 2 1
very fine gravel 2 - 4 4
fine gravel 4 - 6 2
fine gravel 6 -8 3
medium gravel 8 - 11 3
medium gravel 11 - 16 3
coarse gravel 16 - 22 2
coarse gravel 22 - 32 4
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 2
very coarse ravel 45 - 64 2
small cobble 64 - 90 6
medium cobble 90 - 128 8
large cobble 128 - 180 8
very large cobble 180 - 256 3
small boulder 256 - 362
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
very large boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count: 55
bedrock -- ---------------- 1
clay hardpan - ---------------
detritus/wood -- ----------------
artificial -- ----------------

Note: total count: 56
Riffle Cold Springs Creek
-
silt/clay

sand ravel
- -cumulative %
cobble boulder
-#ofparticles?
9
100%
90% 8

80% - ----- --- ------- ---------- --
7
70% I 6 c
m
60%
I 5
w 50%
----
---
------
--------

I °

I 4
v
40%

I

?

a I
I
3
30%
I
I m
20%
I
I 2
10% I 1
I 0
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 3.9 mean 23.4 silt/clay 4% bedrock 2%
D35 15 dispersion 7.0 sand 5%
D50 41 skewness -0.20 gravel 45%
D65 89 cobble 45%
D84 140 boulder 0%
D95 190
Pool
Material Size Range (mm)
Count
silticla 0 -0.062 1
very fine sand 0.062 -0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25 1
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 1
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 2
very coarse sand 1 - 2 1
very fine gravel 2 - 4 8
fine gravel 4 - 6 1
fine gravel 6 - 8 T
medium gravel 8 - 11 2
medium gravel 11 - 16 6
coarse gravel 16 - 22 2
coarse gravel 22 - 32 5
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 6
very coarse ravel 45 - 64 7
small cobble 64 - 90 4
medium cobble 90 - 128 6
large cobble 128 - 180 2
very large cobble 180 - 256
small boulder 256 - 362
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
very large boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count:
bedrock ------------------
clay hardpan -----------------
detritus/wood -----------------
artificial ------------------ 56
1

Note: total count: 57
Run
Material Size Range (mm)
Count
sift/clay 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 2
very coarse sand 1 - 2
very fine gravel 2 - 4
fine gravel 4 - 6
fine gravel 6 - 8
medium gravel 8 - 11 2
medium gravel 11 - 16 4
coarse gravel 16 - 22 3
coarse gravel 22 - 32 4
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 1
very coarse ravel 45 - 64 4
small cobble 64 - 90 5
medium cobble 90 - 128 5
large cobble 128 - 180 6
very large cobble 180 - 256 2
small boulder 256 - 362
small boulder 362 - 512
F edium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
large boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count:
bedrock -----
clay hardpan ----------------
detritus/wood ------------------
artificial ------------------ 39
3

Note: total count: 42
Pool Cold Springs Creek
100% silt clay
90%
70%
cumulative % -# of particles

m
5 60%
`m
50%
c
2 40%
d
n
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
t
I
1
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
i
i
I t
I
L A I I
I
A I 1
0.01 0.1
Size (mm)
D16 2.6
D35 12
D50 26
D65 43
D84 83
D95 120
8
i
7
6
3
a
5
0
4
3
2
1
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size Distribution Ty pe
mean 14.7 silt/clay 2% bedrock 2%
dispersion 6.6 sand 9%
skewness -0.20 gravel 67%
cobble 21%
boulder 0%
Run Cold Springs Creek
100%
90%
80%
70%
c
m
60%
50%
c
2 40%
a
30%
20%
10%
0%
-&-cumulative ./. -# of particles
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i t
0.01 0.1
Size (mm)
D16 12
D35 26
D50 56
D65 86
D84 140
D95 180
7
6
5
c
3
4
a
a
3 m
m
2 y
1 a 10
1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size Distribution _
mean 41.0
dispersion 16
skewness -0.13
silt/clay 0% bedrock 7%
sand 7%
gravel 43%
cobble 43%
boulder 0%
Glide
Material
Size Range (mm)
Count
silt/clay 0 -0.062 1
very fine sand 0.062 -0.125
fine sand 0.125 -0.25
medium sand 0.25 -0.5 4
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 1
very coarse sand 1 - 2 1
very fine gravel 2 -4 1
fine gravel 4 -6 4
fine gravel 6 - 8
medium gravel 8 - 11 1
medium gravel 11 - 16 3
coarse gravel 16 - 22 3
coarse gravel 22 - 32 4
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 2
very coarse ravel 45 - 64 4
small cobble 64 - 90 3
medium cobble 90 - 128 3
large cobble 128 - 180 1
very large cobble 180 -256 2
small boulder 256 - 362
small boulder 362 -512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
very large boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count: 38
bedrock -------------- 2
clay hardpan ------------
detritus/wood --------
artificial -------

Note: total count: 40

silt/clay Glide Cold Springs Creek
sand ravel +cumulative % -# of particles
boulder 4
5
100%
90% .
4
80% 3.5
L 70% L_ 3
3
60% cr
2.5
'P 50% ----' -.-- -- - - - - -- -.-. .... _ _ o
c 2 v

a 1.5 e
30% N
20% _ 1
10% 0.5
0
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm ) Size Distnbution Type
016 1.1 mean 9.9 silt/clay 3% bedrock 5%
035 11 dispersion 12.0 sand 15%
D50 22 skewness -0.25 gravel 55%
D65 43 cobble 23%
D84 89 boulder 0%
D95 180
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
111) Individual Pebble Count
11 Two individual samples may be entered below. Select sample type for each.
Riffle Surface _ , _ ___
Material Size Range (mm; Count
silt/clay 0 - 0.062 1
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25 2
medium sand 0.25 -0.5 1
coarse sand 0.5 - 1
very coarse sand 1 - 2 7
very fine gravel 2 -4 3
fine gravel 4 -6 3
fine gravel 6 - 8 4
medium gravel 8 - 11 4
medium gravel 11 - 16 6
coarse gravel 16 - 22 4
coarse gravel 22 - 32 9
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 6
very coarse ravel 45 - 64 9
small cobble 64 - 90 13
medium cobble 90 - 128 12
large cobble 128 - 180 10
very large cobble 180 - 256 6
small boulder 256 -362
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
very tar a boulder 2048 -4096
total particle count: 100
bedrock ------- 1
clay hardpan -------
detritus/wood ---------
artificial -------
total count: 101
Note: Upstream End of Profile
Riffle Surface Pebble Count, Cold Springs Creek

silt/clay sand ravel
-?-cumulative %
cobble boulder
-# of particle
14
100%
90%
---- --- ------ --------- 12
80
t 70%
10

C
60%
8 C
m
8 50% - - - - --- ------ - - - - - - - 9

6 a
° 40% m
30
4
20%
2
10%
0
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Type
D16 5.2 mean 26.0 silt/clay 1% bedrock 1%
D35 22 dispersion 5.8 sand 10%
D50 45 skewness -0.20 gravel 48%
D65 75 cobble 41%
D84 130 boulder 0%
D95 190
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Two samples may be entered below. Select sample type for each.

Ddrt Bar
Sieve &
Sieve Sieve Sample Retained Passing
Size Weight Weight on Sieve Sieve
(mm) ) (g)
2 682 728 46 2% - ---
4 739 779 40 2% 2% 2%
8 739 814 75 4% 2% 4%
16 811 983 172 9% 4% 8%
31.5 820 820 0 0% 9% 17%
63 706 2383 1677 83% 0% 17%
110 0 0% 83% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100
0 0% 0% 100%
tota l wt retaine d in sieves: 2010
Note: Pavement Largest Particles 95 and 110 mm
Pont B. _ --.-----__
Sieve &
Sieve Sieve Sample Retained Passing
Size Weight Weight on Sieve Sieve
(mm) ) g)
2 682 1097 415 7% -- -
4 739 1346 607 10% 7% 7%
8 739 1520 781 13% 10% 17%
16 811 1835 1024 17% 13% 30%
31.5 820 2883 2063 34% 17% 47%
63 706 1807 1101 18% 34% 82%
90 0 0% 18% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%
0 0% 0% 100%

total: 0 0%
5991 0% 100%
Note: Sub-Pavement Lamest Particles: 68 and 90 mm
Point Bar Cold Springs Creek
100% sand
90%
-----------
80%
70%
5 60%
S
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
??cumulative % -wt of particles passing sieve
01 1 10 100 1000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16 30 065 87 sand 100%
D35 71 D84 99
D50 79 D95 110
Point Bar Cold Springs Creek
??cumulative % -1 of Particles passing sieve
1
i
1
1
i0%
10%
10%7 - -------------- ----------------
o^r.
0%
i0% -------------- -------------
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
1800
1600
1400
1200 F
1000 n
800 a
n
800
400
200
0
2500
2000
F
1500 m
8
1000 2
u
500
0
1 1 10 100 1000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm)
D16 7.4 D65 45
035 19 D84 66
D50 33 D95 82
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
Appendix F
Design Calculations
NCEEP
January 2008
I

Project: Morgan Creek Restoration Site
Haywood County, NC
Project No: 1026-MRGN

Mountain Re ional Curves (Rural)
Location Hec-Ras
Station D.A.
(mil) Areabkf
(ft2) Widthbkf
(ft) Depthbkf
(ft) Qbkf
(cfs)
Morgan Creek Reach 1 100+00 to 111+00 0.47 12.83 14.41 0.88 56.70
Morgan Creek Reach 2 111+00 to 119+50 0.68 16.51 16.52 0.98 75.07
Morgan Creek Reach 3 119+50 to 129+85 0.71 17.00 16.78 1.00 77.58
North Branch 200+00 to 204+15 0.12 5.05 8.69 0.58 20.09
Lower North Branch 500+00 to 501+43 0.18 6.66 10.10 0.65 27.34
Middle Branch 0.004 0.49 2.47 0.20 1.51
South Branch 400+00 to 401+66 0.006 0.65 2.87 0.23 2.06

Local Curves
Location Hec-Ras
Station D.A.
(mil) Areabkf
(ft) Widthbkf
(ft) Depthbkf
(ft) Qbkf
cfs)
Morgan Creek Reach 1100+00 to 111+00 0.47 12.83
Morgan Creek Reach 2 111+00 to 119+50 0.68 16.51
Morgan Creek Reach 3 119+50 to 129+85 0.71 17.00
North Branch 200+00 to 204+15 0.12 5.05
Lower North Branch 500+00 to 501+43 0.18 6.66
Middle Branch 0.004 0.49
South Branch 400+00 to 401+66 0.006 0.65

USGS Re ression E uations (Piedmont)
Location Hec-Ras
Station D.A.
(mil) Q5
(cfs) Qio
(cfs) Q5o
(cfs) Qioo
(cfs)
Morgan Creek Reach 1100+00 to l 11+00 0.47
Morgan Creek Reach 2 111 +00 to 119+50 0.68
Morgan Creek Reach 3 119+50 to 129+85 0.71
North Branch 200+00 to 204+15 0.12
Lower North Branch 500+00 to 501+43 0.18
Middle Branch 0.004
South Branch 400+00 to 401+66 0.006

r

1
1
7 R M V? 7 p N l0 o, 'n
bl1 vy o0 O O ?O VV
H
C
3 ?, W) 'n .n

0o O N ?O fn l? O
W O O ?n ?D -- N
O -- O O p 0
Q

y5 fi ?D O 7
X
a
O ON ^- D1 N o0
? x' ? N D1 ? vl h
O

O b ? D, 4, vl ? N N
?

yaj O O '- -- O O O O

R ?
[--i M M M N N ? ??
y
C w_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
? Q
O u H
_

? C U

R?

N t-

M c

M r-

l? r--

00 10

N
fn
? ,? ? - - o o o p
cG
U? Q
v O N
v

O O
w
U T ?•
v
15
v c

,n

vi

vi

,n

?n
^ R N N N N N N N
x
s

v
3
N
In
In
In
In
In
'c3 N N -- -- O p
?~ 3

O ? N ? N M tft ?O

H b
M
?
QD
01
N fn
3
O O ?,
° + + n

O O O O
O O O O O
O O 'n + +
o O + +

O

O

^- i
O O
N O

+ O

V

a _
--
N _
M Cl
^

v s

°
^
v o
o
^ 0
o

c.7
m
m a
+

N 71
?
y
7
v v v v ? C v
V 1.n ?. C +
+
Fr ? (r
u u u E z m

?
? w m
c
n a
o o
L ? 3 v

0

t

N
>
o0
00 r
?n 7
O O
- O
7 M
V
Q

N O
LO N
LO N

O LO
m to

f? 00

N co

[+0
Cd
V O V r r
s ?

W
?V - M 0 7 I-, r v
0 n0 ?!i M M r co
0
i ciu v`ni N .-• t`
E u r f?1 M ? ?n l? M C}'
?h ? M M 0 C4 N
? ?

C co
N
m O

O
_O
h
M
C
C3 co co v LO M
N

Y
In

co
M

o

lf?
n

00
?n
cl '

°z N 00 U
) LO

L Vi

? U
44 V)
CV
fV
--?
--
O
--

v O O
_ N oO
r-
11
O
0',
1,
A
?
cli

on x O.

cC O N M

O ?O

N M

vl

,:'

O

U o
° 0 0
o o o o 0

O
b M
o0
C ?D
U N
kn O
IO 'O
-
>
x? 0 ?
0 0 0 O O O
.b U

E
O
-
O 00 r,
y 4 to , OO O N M
3

N +
O O O °
O O Cl - O `c
+
+ + + O
C0 4 O +
O
O ,-• ,--
N •-•
M O 00 O
? J U O .C O

V U
CZ +
V

?7
64 u
ce
00
00
LL N
v N N s v

U U U
o
f3
9
LA ? ?
L L Y ?'

1
1

t

a; -- o? o c ? M V1

w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q
O .?
G. Q, DD ? ... N M V V?
A Q -- N N - -- O O

C
R
g
Q
N
w
s_

Qi ?
N
N
l?
M
U
M
c?
(?
1?
a0
?
N
M
xV Q
c --? --? O O O O
r
L

N ?O 1? O M
?
?
C
v M M M N N
..a
.0
? D1
-+ N
N N
N N
-- 7 d. d.
U

b0 M
M 00
In 00
M
N
N
.-1
C
N
CO O M M N 7
F-'

C 00
(/] U M ?Y N N

° c U
O CG
U bD
c
M
v
S r
v O O a
00
[
It
0.
M
7
N
N

O
C'
G O

R
M
M
M
M
M
M
C1

.U./
yam,
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O N ?n vi ?n ?n v? ?n
0.
Q,. M M M M M M M

75
75
3 4

fV

N
i

M

V1

O

M

II. v M ... v oo D, N
O
h
O
O O
V v
o0

O O O O
O O O
+ -- O V
+
_
O 0 D1 O
0 .-. O

O -" N M O ? O
U O
N O C ++
o
CC 4? CG O
N s 7

9 `o P
U
cca U
ca U
cOa 07 Z 8
U Rl
bu ? ? ,? s
o` o` 0 3 '° 5
z a p

F-
U ?i
c Z'
Q F -
Z
Q o U O'
Z c U,!
Z) (n Z
'Q
O 2 U)
Q)
U C o 0
Z O U 0-
N
O
U
R
C
O
O
c
C
O
O
U
Z
0
0
0
0
0
E
a
ca
o L
a
a?
0

O
(•;j •bs) eaab' SX
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
Appendix G
Categorical Exclusions
IV(LL
January 2008
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RECEIVED
Appendix A G ? T X 2000
Categorical Exclusion Form for E "N
cosyst tW?;ent
Program Projects
Verson 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be subrniCed !along with any supporting docurnentation
as the environmental document.
Part 1: General • Information
Project Name: Morgan Creek Restoration Site
'County Name: Haywood
;
EEP Number: Contract # D06035A
Project onsor: Restoration Systems, LLC
Project Contact Name: Travis Hamrick
Project Contact Address: 1101 Haynes jS
t
reeth NC 276Q7 Project Contact E-mail: ions stems
EEP Project Mana err Gu Pearce
• Description
The project is located along Morgan Creek and an unnamed tributary of Morgan Creek in the
French Broad River Basin in Haywood County approximately 11 miles north of Lake Junaluska
within Targeted Loca Watershed 06010106020040. The site is currently utilized for cattle grazing
and consists of excluding the cattie and restoring approximately 4;850 feet of degraded streams
and five acres of riverine wetlands.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed Rv-
Date
Conditional Approved By,
i
Date
? Check this box 4 there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date
6
EEP Project Manager
i
For Division Administrator
FHWA
For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18105
r
Part 2: All Projects
-RegulationlQuestion ..
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? ? Yes
[Z ] No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of ? Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? No
[Z ] NIA
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
? No
? N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management ? Yes
Program? ? No
? N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabili Act CE R CLA
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? ? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been Yes
designated as commercial or industrial? No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential O Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ?? No
? NIA
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous Yes
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 hazardous Yes
waste sites within the project area? ? No
?? WA
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
? No
? N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 1061
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Yes
Historic Places in the project area? ? No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? ? Yes
? No
? N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
? No
? N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac lsition Policies Act (Uni for m AM
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? ? Yes
? No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? ? Yes
? No
WA
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; and ? No
. what the fair market value is believed to be? N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part 3: Ground -Disturbing Activities

Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AtRFA
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
?? No
NIA
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic ? Yes
Places? ? No
? NIA
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
? No
?? NIA
Antiquities 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
?? NIA
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
Endangered S cies Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat ? Yes
listed for the county? ? No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
?? No
WA
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 modify" Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? ? No
? WA
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
? No
? N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination? Yes
? No
? N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

1
1

1
1

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
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed ? Yes
project? ? No
? N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred ? Yes
sites? ? No
? N/A
Farmland Protection Policy 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 body? No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
? No
? N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section
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 Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential ' h Ha bitat)
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
Migratory Bird Treaty Act META
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
? No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
? 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 Yes
federal agency? ? No
Q NIA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Environmental Documentation
for
Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Contract Number D06035-A
' Categorical Exclusion Form Items
CZMA
Not applicable, as the project is not located in a CAMA,county.
CERCLA
See the attached Executive Summary of the limited Phase 1 Site Assessment.
National Historic Preservation Act (Secti_ 'on 106)
See the attached letters to and from the State Historic Preservation Office. SHPO recommended
that an archaeological survey of the site be conducted. RS contracted with Legacy Research
Associates, Inc. and the survey was conducted. One isolated find consisting of two prehistoric
flakes was recorded within the project area, but their report concluded that the find contains
limited information, that the site is not eligible for the NRHP, and that no further archaeological
work is necessary. Seethe attached Management Summary from the report. Two copies of the
report were submitted to SHPO and they have concurred with the conclusions of the report.
Uniform Act
See the attached page from the purchase contract with the landowner.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
A request for concurrence and a copy of the archaeological report was submitted to Mr. Tyler
Howe, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, EBCI. See the attached correspondence with Mr.
Howe.
• Antiquities Act
Not applicable, as the project is not located on Federal lands.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
Not applicable, as the project is not located on Federal or Indian lands.
Endaneyed Species Act
See the attached internal memo with the Biological Conclusion of No Effect. There is no
suitable habitat on the site for the Federally Endangered species known to occur in Haywood
County.
Executive Order 13007
Not applicable, as the project is not located on Federal Lands within a county claimed by the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

Farmland Protection Policy Act
No unique or prime farmland will be converted. See the attached USDA Form AD-1006
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
' See the attached letters to the NCWRC and the USFWS. Only the NCWRC provided comment
on the project. They had no objection to the project and suggested that it could improve the trout
fishery in the watershed. They also stated that they will require review of the application of the
nationwide permit that will be required for the project because the project is locate in a "trout
county."
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
' Not applicable. The project will not convert recreation lands.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Not applicable. The project is not located in an estuarine system.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
' See the attached letters to the NCWRC and the USFWS. Neither agency made a comment on the
project relative to this act.
Other Miscellaneous Items
Public Notice
See the attached Affidavit of Publication of a Public Notice in the Waynesville Mountaineer.
t
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The EDR Radius Map
with GeoChecV
Morgan Creek Restoration Site
Haywood County
Clyde, NC 28721
Inquiry Number: 01718882.2r
July 19, 2006
EDR® Environmental
Data Resources Inc
The Standard in
Environmental Risk
Management Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06461
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edmet.com
FOR"afts"

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------------- ES1
Overview Map----------------------------------------------------------- 2
Detail Map -------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Map Findings Summary ---------------------------------------------------- 4
Map Findings------------------------------------------------------------ 6
Orphan Summary -------------------------------------------------------- 7
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum ------------------------------------------ A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary ------------------------------------------- A-2
Physical Setting Source Map ------------------------------------------------ A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings---------------------------------------- A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched------------------------------------ A-18
Thank you for your business.
Piease contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain Information obtained from a vadety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
=T'
, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surroundi pro?L s does not exist from
e. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR WP is uenE wu3tcnm=01u rnuueru un Tine _t j x." :.....?....
w ?w.?cc7alv?cbcJ, 111q- QV=1ArP-0UJ-T urwr.wrrs THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES,. INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,.:
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCESJNC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE;, INCLUDING, WrrHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchase accepts this Report 'AS IS-. Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided In this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any fads regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2006 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission-
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC01718882.2r Page 1

n

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
HAYWOOD COUNTY
CLYDE, NC 28721
COORDINATES
Latitude (North): 35.688400 - 35' 41' 18.2"
Longitude (West): 82.953300 - 82' 57' 11,9"
Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 17
UTM X (Meters): 323248.6
UTM Y (Meters): 3950946.8
Elevation: 2690 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 35082-F8 FINES CREEK, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1967
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
' DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL_________________ ________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL______ ________ Proposed National Priority List Sites
Delisted NPL---------------- National Priority List Deletions
NPL RECOVERY__ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ Federal Superfund Liens
CERCUS--------------------- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CERC-NFRAP-------- -------- CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
CORRACTS ------------------ Corrective Action Report
RCRA-TSDF--------- -------- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-LQG---------- -------- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
TC017188822r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RCRASQG------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
ERNS________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
HMIRS_______________________ Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
US ENG CONTROLS-------- - Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL -------- - Sites with Institutional Controls
DOD_________________________ Department of Defense Sites
' FUDS------------------------ Formerly Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS---------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT ------------------- Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD------------------------- Records Of Decision
UMTRA_____________________ Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
'
ODL_________________________ Open Dump Inventory
TRIS ------------------------- Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA ------------------------ Toxic Substances Control Act
FTTS_______ __ _
.
-_-FIFRA/TSCATrackingSystem-FIFRA(FederalInsecticide,Fungicide,&
---
- Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
SSTS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Section 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS__________________________ Integrated Compliance Information System
PADS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PCB Activity Database System
MLTS --
-
-
- Material Licensing Tracking System
'
MINES --------
--
---
----- Mines Master Index File
FINDS-------- " - - - _ _______. Facility Index System/FacilityRegistry System
RAATS----------------------- RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS ------------------------ Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
NC HSDS -------------------- Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
IMO -------------------------- Incident Management Database
'
SWF/LF---------------------- List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLL-------------------------- Old Landfill Inventory
LUST ------------------------- Regional UST Database
LUST TRUST ---------------- State Trust Fund Database
UST -_- Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST __________ _ ________ ASTDatabase
INST CONTROL - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
VCP--------------------------- Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS_____________ Drycieaning Sikes
'
BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
NPDES_______________________ NPDES Facility Location Listing
' TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV------------- Indian Reservations
INDIAN LUST_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
INDIAN UST ------------------ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants..- EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Historical Auto StationsEDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations
EDR Historical Cleaners..--. EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
I T001 718882.2r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
Site Name Database(s)
HAYWOOD COUNTY C&D UNIT SWF/LF
TRANTHAM'S GROCERY LUST, UST, IMD
HANDY HANNAH'S LUST, IMD
SENTELLE GROCERY LUST, IMD
WARREN RESIDENCE LUST, IMD
BOYD'S TRUCK STOP LUST TRUST
JR'S COUNTRY STORE & FARM CEN UST
FINES CREEK ELEMENTARY UST
FERGUSON SUPPLY UST
N C FOREST RESOURCES UST
HANDY HANNAH'S LIST
FINES CREEK ELEMENTARY' FINDS
TC017188822r EXECUTNE SUMMARY 3
OVERVIEW MAP - 01718882.2r
* Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1A in 1 WWI
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
National Wetland inventory
-7 State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide reap information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Morgan Creek Restoration Site CLIENT: Restoration Systems: LLC
ADDRESS: Haywood County CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Clyde NC 28721 INQUIRY #: 01718882.2r
LATILONG: 35.6884182.9533 DATE: July 19, 2006
;..:DYr gat = 2306 ECR Irp , 20C6 Tao A*Ias 3e: ii7;20CE
DETAIL MAP - 01718882.2r

z
---

P
'l
.
a
s
n
x
n
t

t

s
2

_ F

G CA i

rll
Z

O

S

* Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A. Manufactured Gas Plants
Sensitive Receptors
F7 National Priority List Sites
ED Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 in6 t18 116 Miles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
This report includes Interactive Map Lagers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Morgan Creek Restoration Site CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: Haywood County CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Clyde NC 28721 INQUIRY 4: 01718882.2r
LAT/LONG: 35.6884/82.9533 DATE: July 19, 2006
GoFi"i?:. 2GG63Ci.!n_' ?n -ala ,at.u rol 3,`C-35
1
1
1
I'.
1
1
1
1
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 -1/4 1/4 -1/2 1/2 -1 > 1 Plotted
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL
Proposed NPL
Delisted NPL
NPL RECOVERY
CERCLIS
CERC-NFRAP
CORRACTS
RCRA TSD
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen.
RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen.
ERNS
HMIRS
US ENG CONTROLS
US INST CONTROL
DOD
FURS
US BROWNFIELDS
CONSENT
ROD
UMTRA
ODI
TRIS
TSCA
FITS
SSTS
ICIS
PADS
MLTS
MINES
FINDS
RAATS
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
State Haz. Waste
NC, HSDS
IMD
State Landfill
OLI
LUST
LUST TRUST
UST
AST
INST CONTROL
VCP
DRYCLEANERS
BROWNFIELDS
NPOES
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TP NR' NR NR NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
0.500` 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TC01718882.2r Page 4
1
t
1
i
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
TRIBAL RECORDS
Search
Target Distance Total
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 -1/2 1/2 -1 > 1 Plotted
INDIAN RESERV 1.000
INDIAN LUST 0.500
INDIAN UST 0.250
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.000
EDR Historical Auto Stations TP
EDR Historical Cleaners TP
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 p 0 NR NR 0
0 0 NR NR NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
NR NR NR NR NR 0
NR NR NR NR NR 0
TC01718882.2r Page 5
Natural Resourms
Restoration & Conservation
July 25, 2006
Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: EEP- Morgan Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Project in Haywood County.
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) has been awarded a contract by the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program`(EEP) to implement a stream and wetland restoration project in Haywood County. As
required by the contract, RS requests your review of the project and any comments that you may
have with respect to archaeological or historical resources associated with it. The location of the
project is shown on the attached map.
' The Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration site has been identified for the purpose of
providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several
sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. No architectural structures or
archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for
restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of this site has historically been disturbed due to
agricultural purposes such as hay production and cattle grazing. The ground disturbance
activities required to complete this project will only impact those areas that have previously been
impacted due to these agricultural practices.
The project involves the restoration of approximately 5,000 feet of Morgan Creek and five acres
of wetlands. It is located on the Ferguson Farm, approximately 10 miles north of Waynesville in
Haywood County (Figure 1). The project consists of two separate reaches (Reach 1 is along
Morgan Creek and Reach 2 is an unnamed tributary to Morgan Creek) that drain into Fines
Creek, a tributary of the Pigeon River (Figure 2). The property is owned by James Ferguson,
Marion Ferguson, and Neil Ferguson.
' We request that you review this site based on the information provided to determine if you know
of any existing resources that we need to know about. In addition, please provide us with your
comments regarding the proposed project.
Version 2.0 (720/05)
Pilot Mill - 1101 Haynes St.. Suite 107- Raleigh. NC 27604 - www.restorationsystems.com - Phone [phone]- Fax [phone]
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
Y f nt'?F'? y d 4-? L _ l C Y, v 4
IGlllllll -Earley
rC 2006
i
Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me
at the office [phone] or on my cell phone [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
AAWO?dk
Travis Hamrick, Project Manager
Attachments: 2 maps
Version 2.0 (7/20/05)

I
i
i
t
rACU6.212006
BY: ....................
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter 11 saw, Adminlatrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
tAbdh C. Evans, Secretary Division otHistorical Resotttlxs
' Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
August 17, 2006
Travis Hamrick
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh,-NC 27604
Re: EEP Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, Haywood County, ER 06-2013
Dear Mr. Hamrick:
Thank you for your letter of July 25, 2006, concerning the above project
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been :systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based on
the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites.
We recommend that it comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate
1 the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential
effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms, should
be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any construction
activities.
1 A list of archaeological consultants- who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina
is available at www.Bch.dcr.stamnc.us/con,%Wts.htn,. The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced
archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CPR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future communication
concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
ter Sandbeck
Location MOM Wren TalopioodFax
567 N. Blowt S1ted, Raleigh NC 4617 MM servi a Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)133-47631733.8653
RATIOallMMA'ON IN 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mall Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)733-654711154881
tSMVBY tit PLANNING 515 It 01ount Street, R01e4K NC 4617 Mail Sarvioc C:=W, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)733.654511154861

Archaeological Survey EEP Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Haywood County, North Carolina
'
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Legacy Research Associates Inc. (Legacy) of Durham, North Carolina, has completed the archaeological
survey for the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration in
Haywood County, North Carolina (ER 06-2013). This work was conducted for Restoration Systems, LLC, of
Raleigh, North Carolina.
The Morgan Creek project involves the restoration of 1.3 km (4,300 linear feet) of stream channels and 2
1 hectares (5 acres) of wetland restoration (Figure 1). The purpose of the archaeological survey was to
locate, document, and conduct National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligibility evaluation
investigations for archaeological resources that may be affected by the stream and wetland restoration
project.
This work complies with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the Archaeological
and Historical Preservation Act of 1974, Executive Order 11593, and 36 CFR Parts 660-66 and 800 (as
appropriate). It meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation (Federal Register 48). All information submitted in this report is factual and sufficiently
complete to enable the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to perform the necessary
reviews.
Background _Research
A review of state and local survey data was completed prior to the archaeological survey. This included
the flies at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and collections held at the North Carolina
State Library in Raleigh. Research identified five previously recorded archaeological sites within 1.6 km (1
ml) of the project. None of the sites are located within the project boundaries.
Additionally, based on the topographic and hydrological situation, the North Carolina SHPO determined
there to be a high probability for the presence of prehistoric and/or historic archaeological sites within the
project boundaries.
Field Investigations Results and Recommendations
Archaeological survey for the project was conducted by Legacy between September 11 and 13, 2006.
Deborah joy served as project director and Jared Roberts served as field director; Rhonda Cranfill-Moran,
Johann Furbacher, Chris Pettyjohn, Andrea Prentis, and Jay Stevens assisted.
One archaeological isolated find (31 HW521) was recorded within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE)
during the survey (Figure 1). This isolated find consists of two prehistoric lithics (one chert secondary
flake and one chert tertiary flake) and one historic period undecorated pearlware fragment. The isolated
find contains limited information about the prehistory and history of the region. It is recommended as
being not eligible for the NRHP and no further archaeological work is necessary.
t
dl' ?w -4"
?qWAk
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Pda B. swat*. Amai "Or
Michael F. Feeley, Governor Office ofArchives and History
Lisbeth C. Bvas, Secrany Division of Historical Resoarces
Jefficy J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
November 16, 2006 F
NOV 17 2006
Travis Hamrick
Restoration Systems, LLC BY .....................
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
' Raleigh, NC 27604 `
Re: EEP Morgan Creeek Stream and Wedand Restoration, Haywood County, ER 06-2013
I Dear Mr. Hamrick:
Thank you for your letter transmitting the archaeological survey report by Legacy Research Associates, Inc. .
for the above project. The report meets our guidelines and those of the Secretary of the. Interior.
During the course of the survey, oac site was located within the project area. The report author has
1 recommended that no farther archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We
concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
1 The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-FArley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future-
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
ee a Sandbeck
cc: Legacy Research Associates, Inc.
i Loeatisa Mauls Adras Tdepho*dFn
AD MllYt81 T10N SW N. Meant Street, R"Sh NC 4617 MW U vba Ceara, It"Sh14C 276934617 (91%733476W"-8653
RESTORATION its N. Blow soot, Rdoish NC 4617 )M SaNico Center, RAleiah NC 270M617 (9141723454mt5-4801
SMVKY k PLANNING 515N. Blount Skeet, RaW$k NC 4617 Mau Smvico Cara, RMW$k NC 27693A617 (919M3.6545M.W1
n
' If B
b
uyer
reaches this Option, then Seller shall retain the Option Fee and any Extension Fee as
liquidated damages and as Seller's sole remedy for such breach.
17
PROR
.
ATION: All real estate taxes and other assessments with respect to the
Easement Property for the year in which the closing occurs, shall be prorated to the closing date.
Seller shall pay for any "roll back" or deferred ad valorem taxes.
18. SELLER DISCLOSURES: Seller has no notice of any pending or threatened claim,
litigation, condemnation, assessment or other matter affecting the Easement Property, or any part
thereof. There are no and have not been any hazardous materials, pollutants, chemicals, wastes,
petroleum products or underground storage tanks at, on, under or around the Easement Property;
the Easement Property is and has been in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws, orders and regulations, including, without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended and all other environmental
1 laws. There are no restrictions or applicable regulations that prevent the use of the Easement
Property for Buyer's Intended Use.
Seller acknowledges that, prior to executing this Option Agreement, Buyer has advised Seller
that Buyer does not have authority to acquire the Easement Property by eminent domain in the
event negotiations fail to result in an amicable agreement. Further, Seller acknowledges that
Buyer has previously informed Seller that Buyer believes the Purchase Price represents the fair
market value of an easement in the form attached as Exhibit C over the Easement Property.
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Option contains the entire agreement of the parties and
there are no re
resentations
induce
t
th
i
i
h
h
h
p
,
men
s or o
er prov
s
ons ot
an t
er t
ose expressed herein.
All charges, additions or deletions hereto must be in writing and signed by all parties.
20. MEMORANDUM OF OPTION: Simultaneously with the execution of this Option,
the parties shall execute and record a Memorandum of Option in the form attached as Exhibit B.
1 21. TAX DEFERRED EXCHANGE: Seller shall cooperate with Buyer at Buyer's
expense should Buyer elect to participate in a tax deferred exchange with respect to the
acquisition of the Easement Property.

t

Natural Resources
Restoration & Conservation
July 25, 2006
Mr. Tyler Howe
Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
_ Cherokee, NC 28719
Subject: EEP- Morgan Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Project in Haywood County
Dear Mr. Howe:
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) has been awarded a contract by the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) to implement a stream and wetland restoration project in Haywood County. As
required by the contract, RS requests your review of the project and any comments that you may
have with respect to archaeological or religious resources associated with it.
¦ The Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration site has been identified for the purpose of
providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several
sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. No architectural structures or
archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for
restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of this site has historically been disturbed due to
agricultural purposes such as hay production and cattle grazing. The ground disturbance
activities required to complete this project will only impact those areas that have previously been
impacted due to these agricultural practices.
The project involves the restoration of approximately 5,000 feet of Morgan Creek and five acres
of wetlands. It is located on the Ferguson Farm, approximately 10 miles north of Waynesville in
Haywood County (Figure 1). The project consists of two separate reaches (Reach I is along
Morgan Creek and Reach 2 is an unnamed tributary to Morgan Creek) that drain into Fines
Creek, a tributary of the Pigeon River (Figure 2). The property is owned by James Ferguson,
Marion Ferguson, and Neil Ferguson.
We request that you review this site based on the information provided to determine if you know
of any existing resources that we need to know about. In addition, please provide us with your
comments regarding the proposed project.
Pilot Mill - 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107- Raleigh, NC 27604 - www.restorationsystems.com - Phone [phone]- Fax [phone]
t
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?{ r R ?
Project Vcinity
1; ? r
41/
aa? \• < _. moky u-tams Overview Map
`• _ Great s National
^?. 9 Direction To Morgan Creek-
Follow l-40 West, and take Exit 15 toward a
f , 4 Fines Creek. Turn right onto Fines Creek
1 Rd and follow for 3 miles. Immediately
after the Fines Creek SchooVLibrary on L? 74 19
_ the left, turn left onto Ki Asheville
rkpatrick Cove-
r'- !Y`` Morgan Creek will be on the right
Restoration Systems, LLC Figure 1: Morgan Creek Stream & a
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107 project Wetland Restoration Project 1:24,000 N
' Raleigh, NC 27604 Location Haywood County„ NC
919.755.9490 o soo 1,000 2,000 a:ooa 4,000
Feet
fl

1

1

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Ph: 828-488-0237 Fax [phone]
TO: David Schiller
PROJECT(S): Proposed Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, Haywood
County, North Carolina.
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians would
like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed Section 106 activity
under 36 C.F.R. 800.
This office believes that no significant cultural resources will be impacted due to ground
disturbing activities associated with this project. At this time, the EBCI THPO feels that
the above mentioned project may proceed as planned. In the event that cultural resources
or human remains are inadvertently discovered, please forward all cultural resources
investigation data to this office for review and comment.
If we can be of further service, or if you have any comments or questions, please feel free
to contact me at [phone] ext 2.
Sincerely
Tyler B. Howe
' Tribal Historical Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
DATE: 6 -October - 06
1

' July 31, 2006
MEMO TO: Dave Schiller
' FROM: Travis Hamrick
SUBJECT: Morgan Creek: Section 7
'
On October 26, 2005, the North
, Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) issued
a Request for Proposals for 5,000 feet of stream, 3 acres of riverine and 5 acres of non-
riverine wetland mitigation in the French Broad river basin, Cataloging Unit 06010106.
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), of Raleigh, NC was subsequently awarded a contract by
the EEP to provide 5,000 feet of stream and 5 acres of riverine wetland mitigation at the
' Morgan Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Site. Soil & Environmental Consultants is
under contract to RS to provide technical environmental consulting and design services.
One of the earliest tasks to be performed by RS is completion of an environmental
screening and preparation/submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. This
document is specifically required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
' ensure compliance with various federal environmental laws and regulations. The,EEP
must demonstrate that its projects comply with federal mandates as a precondition to
FHWA reimbursement of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina
' Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands.
Since financial support of certain EEP operational budgets derives, in part, from federal
' authorizations, it is necessary to conduct a Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service). This letter provides you with certain details about Morgan
Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Site, including the project's location, a general
description of its physiography, hydrography and existing land uses, as well as the
intended modifications to the site proposed by RS. In addition, should the project be
located in a geographic area in which federally-listed species may be present (based on
' element occurrences, as reflected in Service listings), and if scientifically-sound practices
have been used to confirm the presence of suitable habitat for any listed species within
the project area, the results of appropriate surveys for each listed species and separate
' biological conclusions for each will be provided for your review and consideration. You
are asked to review the information provided and determine if it is sufficient to enable
you to concur with our biological conclusions.

Dave Schiller
Page 2
10/6/2006
Project Location & Description
The project is located on the Ferguson Farm, approximately 10 miles north of
' Waynesville in Haywood County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The latitude and longitude
at the project center is 35.68842 N and -82.95331 W. The project consists of two
separate reaches (Reach 1 is along Morgan Creek and Reach 2 is an unnamed tributary to
' Morgan Creek) that drain to Fines Creek, a tributary of the Pigeon River (Figure 2).
The site lies in the low mountains of North Carolina, just east of the Pigeon River, in
rolling topography underlain by metamorphic gneisses and schists. Elevations along
Reach 1 range from 2525 to 2625 feet. Elevations along Reach 2 range from 2605 to
2695 feet. The upland soils in the area are well-drained and generally have reddish-
brown, loamy sub-soils (Evard, Fannin, Hayesville Soil Series). The majority of the
uplands are wooded with a few areas in pasture and hayfields.
Driving directions to the site from Waynesville (or Asheville):
Follow 140 West, and take Exit 15 toward Fines Creek. Turn right onto Fines Creek Rd
and follow for 3 miles. Immediately after the Fines Creek School/Library on the left,
turn left onto Kirkpatrick Cove. Morgan Creek will be on the right. Reach 1 ends at the
culvert inlet (where Morgan Creek crosses beneath Kirkpatrick Cove), and begins at the
next road crossing approximately'/. of a mile further up Kirkpatrick Cove. Reach 2 ends
' near the upstream beginning of Reach 1, and runs upslope to a stand of large trees (Figure
2). The site is on page 30 of the DeLorme Gazetteer (section D3).
' Restoration Means & Methods
To perform the necessary stream restoration along the impaired reaches, natural channel
design methods will be used. The restoration will allow a reconnection of the stream
channel with the adjacent historic floodplain. The restoration design will result in a
rife-pool system with proper pattern and profile. Meanders of varying radii will be
integrated along the length of the restored reaches to mimic the variability of a natural
channel and utilize the available project area to the maximum extent possible based on
existing site conditions. The restored channel banks will be planted with native
' vegetation that represent both woody (trees and shrubs) and herbaceous species.
As suitable hydric soils already exist, the restoration of riverine wetlands will be
' performed through the rehydration of existing hydric soils by routing the restored stream
through these areas (with an appropriate pattern) as well as restoring the potential for
over-bank flooding of these areas. Once grading and structural development is complete,
' suitable wetland vegetation, including tree and shrub species, will be planted within all
restored wetland areas.
Dave Schiller
Page 3
10/6/2006
1 Federally Listed Species
There are nine federally listed species with at least historical records of occurring in
' Haywood County as identified through the US Fish & Wildlife Service web site
aM://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countvfr.html .

1
Table 1. Federallv Listed Species for Havwnnd f'nnnty
SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS
Puma concolor cougar Eastern puma Endangered
otis isescens gray bat Endangered
Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Endan ered
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern
flying squirrel Endangered
Halweetus leucoce halus bald eagle Threatened
Clemm s muhlenber ii Bo turtle Threatened (S/A
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe Endangered
Murohexura montiva a spruce-fir moss spider Endangered
Isotria medeloides small whorled pogonia Threatened
note:. --rnaangerecris a taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range; "Threatened" is a taxon likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a portion of its range; "Threatened (S/A)" is a taxon
which is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species. This species
does not require Section 7 consultation.
Based on the scope of proposed work involved in implementing the restoration and
enhancement (Level 2) activities, land disturbing activities will occur only in a narrow
band (+/-100 feet wide) along portions of both riparian corridors. A review of the
habitat requirements for each of the listed species confirms that the project activities will
not disturb habitats for the Carolina northern flying squirrel, bald eagle, Eastern puma, or
the spruce-fir moss spider. Furthermore, the size of the two stream reaches targeted_ for
mitigation are so small they don't constitute suitable habitat for the Appalachian elktoe.
In addition, phone coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources -
Commission's Western Aquatic Non-game Coordinator, Steve Fraley, confirms that there
are no suitable elktoe habitat downstream of the project area including the section of the
Pigeon River into which Fines Creek flows.
This preliminary analysis of potential conflicts with federally listed species concluded
' that three species (small whorled pogonia, Indiana bat and gray bat) needed further field
assessment in order to determine if habitat was present for them.
' Small whorled pogonia: Plant is a perennial member of the orchid family, which displays
a smooth, hollow stem, green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed. A single or
perhaps two flowers are produced at the top of the stem from May to mid-June. In North
1 Carolina the plant tends to be found in association with montane oak-hickory or acidic
cove forests at elevations between 2,000 and 4,000 feet (amsl)
Dave Schiller
Page 4
10/6/2006
Gray bat and Indiana bat: The literature suggests that both bats roost and nest in caves
throughout their range, but the Indiana bat can also roost under the bark of certain
hickories (bitternut and shagbark). After ruling out potential impacts to cave sites, it was
important to determine if suitable roosting habitat for the Indiana bat occurred in close
proximity to the proposed mitigation footprint.
Summary of Anticipated Effects
Small whorled nogonia: Field surveys of the entire project area were conducted on July
25, 2006. Habitat within the potential construction footprint of the project included an
overall matrix of pasture grasses interspersed with an almost impenetrable continuum of
Rosa multi. flora and Rubus sp. Based upon an absence of suitable habitat it is reasonable
to conclude the project will have No Effect on small whorled pogonia.
Indiana bat: No shagbark hickories nor other suitable loose-barked trees will be removed
as part of the mitigation implementation. To ensure that all potential roost sites were
identified in proximity to the project, parallel transects were walked throughout the
forested habitats surrounding the mitigation site. No suitable roost sites are located in the
vicinity of the project. Based upon an absence of suitable habitat it is reasonable to
conclude the project will have No Effect on the Indiana bat.
Should you have questions or if any additional information is needed to complete your
review, please feel free to contact me at the office (919.755.9490) or on my cell phone
(919.819.0414). Your valuable time and cooperation are much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Travis Hamrick, Project Manager
Attachments: 2 maps
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATIN AJ"v 2 1 ?09?
PART 1(To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 7/25106
B Y•
Name Of Protect Morgan Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Site Federal Agency Involved
Federal Highway Administration
Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site County And State Haywood, NC
PART U (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Rece,ved By NRCS
noes me sne contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(f no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). El Aces Irigated Average Farm Size
::LandEvaluation s)

System Used Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiiction
Acres: %
Name Of Local S4a Assessment System Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) A Iemalivve Site Ptating

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly Site A
} Site B Sile C Site D
C. Total Acres In Site 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres' Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt: Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) 0
0
0
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are mpbined in 7 CFR 666 5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided B State And Local Govemment
5. Distance From Urban Buillup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of'Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility Wdh Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 0 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 0 0
Total Ske Assessment (From Part V1 above or a local 160 0 0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 0 0 0 0
Site Selected: Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No I7
R=44wl r'W 7esecum:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 1083)
This form was eleawrwauy pmducea by Nauaw Production Services Stair
Natural Resources
' Restoration & Conservation
' July 25, 2006 =
U. S. Department of the Interior
' Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office

' 160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville
NC 28801
,
ATTN: Marella Buncick, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
'
SUBJECT: Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Behalf of (1) Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act and (2) Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the Morgan Creek
' Stream and Wetland Restoration Site.
Mrs. Buncick:
1 O
O
b
n
cto
er 26, 2005, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) issued
a Request for Proposals for 5,000 feet of stream, 3 acres of riverine and 5 acres of non-
riverine wetland mitigation in the French Broad river basin, Cataloging Unit 06010106.
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), of Raleigh, NC was awarded a contract by the EEP to
provide 5,000 feet of stream and 5 acres of riverine wetland mitigation at the Morgan
Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Site. Patrick Smith of Soil & Environmental
' Consulting is under contract to RS to provide technical environmental consulting and
design services.
-One of the earliest tasks to be performed by RS is completion of an environmental
screening and preparation/submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. This
document is specifically required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
' ensure compliance with various federal environmental laws and regulations. The EEP
must demonstrate that its projects comply with federal mandates as a precondition to
FHWA reimbursement of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina
' Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands.
In order for the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with your office on
behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA). This letter provides you with certain details of the Morgan Creek Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site, including the project's location, a general description of its
Pilot Mill - I lOl Haynes St., Suite 107 - Raleigh. NC 27604 - www.restoraticrosy,,tems.com - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone]
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Page 2
Date: 07/25/2006
physiography, hydrography and existing land uses, as well as the intended modifications
to the site proposed by RS. You are encouraged to determine if the actions proposed by
RS may be inimical to any resources embraced by the FWCA, or the MBTA and provide
comments to RS based on your evaluation. It is reasonable to assume that the Service
will comment if the actions proposed by RS are, in the Service's opinion, likely to result
in harm to resources embraced by the FWCA or the MBTA.
Project Location & Description
The project is located on the Ferguson Farm, approximately 10 miles north of
Waynesville in Haywood County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The latitude and longitude
at the project center is 35.68842 N and -82.95331 W. The project consists of two
separate reaches (Reach 1 is along Morgan Creek and Reach 2 is an unnamed tributary to
Morgan Creek) that drain to Fines Creek, a tributary of the Pigeon River (Figure 2).
The site lies in the low mountains of North Carolina, just east of the Pigeon River, in
rolling topography underlain by metamorphic gneisses and schists. Elevations along
Reach 1 range from 2525 to 2625 feet.: Elevations along Reach 2 range from 2605 to
2695 feet. The upland soils in the area are well-drained and generally have reddish-
brown, loamy sub-soils (Evard, Fannin, Hayesville Soil Series). The majority of the
uplands are wooded with a few areas in pasture and hayfields.
Driving directions to the site from Waynesville (or Asheville):
Follow 1-40 West, and take Exit 15 toward Fines Creek. Turn right onto Fines Creek Rd
and follow for 3 miles. Immediately after the Fines Creek School/Library on the le£t,
turn left onto Kirkpatrick Cove. Morgan Creek will be on the right. Reach 1 ends at the
culvert inlet (where Morgan Creek crosses beneath Kirkpatrick Cove), and begins at the
next road crossing approximately'/ of a mile further up Kirkpatrick Cove. Reach 2 ends
near the upstream beginning of Reach 1, and runs upslope to a stand of large trees. The
site is on page 30 of the DeLorme Gazetteer (section 133).
Restoration Means & Methods
To perform the necessary stream restoration along the impaired reaches, natural channel
design methods will be used. The restoration will allow a reconnection of the stream
channel with the adjacent historic floodplain. The restoration design will result in a
riffle-pool system with proper pattern and profile. Meanders of varying radii will be
integrated along the length of the restored reaches to mimic the variability of a natural
channel and utilize the available project area to the maximum extent possible based on
existing site conditions. The restored channel banks will be planted with native
vegetation that represent both woody (trees and shrubs) and herbaceous species.
As suitable hydric soils already exist, the restoration of riverine wetlands will be
performed through the rehydration of existing hydric soils by routing the restored stream
z'
!r
' 1
QESTORAAON
srsT�s,uc
VSs
s �
/T.....ar 14\
CM�
17
NQ&rooky Mamrains N Overview Map
(' `'A -
40

Natural Restxtrces
Restoration & Conservation
July 25, 2006
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
Falls Lake Office
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmore, NC 27522
ATTN: David Cox, Technical Guidance Supervisor
SUBJECT: Coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission on
Behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for the Morgan Creek Stream &
Wetland Restoration Site
Mr. Cox:
On October 26, 2005, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) issued
a Request for Proposals for 5,000 feet of stream, 3 acres of riverine and 5 acres of non-
riverine wetland mitigation in the French Broad river basin, Cataloging Unit 06010106.
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), of Raleigh, NC was awarded a contract by the EEP to
provide 5,000 feet of stream and 5 acres of riverine wetland mitigation at the Morgan
Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Site. Patrick Smith of Soil & Environmental
Consulting is under contract to RS to provide technical environmental. consulting-and
design services.
One of the earliest tasks to be performed by RS is completion of an environmental
screening and preparation/submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. This
document is specifically required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
ensure compliance with various federal environmental laws and regulations. The EEP
must demonstrate that its projects comply with federal mandates as a precondition to
FHWA reimbursement of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands.
In order for the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with your office on
behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). This letter provides you with
certain details of the Morgan Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Site, including the
project's location, a general description of its physiography, hydrography and existing
Pilot Mill - 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - www.restorationsystems.com - Phone [phone] - Fax 919,755.9492

David Cox, NCWRC
Page 2
Date: 7/25/06
land uses, as well as the intended modifications to the site proposed by RS. You are
encouraged to determine if the actions proposed by RS may be inimical to any resources
embraced by the FWCA, and provide comments to RS based on your evaluation. It is
reasonable to assume that you will comment if the actions proposed by RS are, in your
opinion, likely to result in harm to resources embraced by the FWCA.
Project Location & Description
The project is located on the Ferguson Farm, approximately 10 miles north of
Waynesville in Haywood County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The latitude and longitude
at the project center is 35.68842 N and -82.95331 W. The project consists of two
separate reaches (Reach 1 is along Morgan Creek and Reach 2 is an unnamed tributary to
' Morgan Creek) that drain to Fines Creek, a tributary of the Pigeon River (Figure 2).
The site lies in the low mountains of North Carolina, just east of the Pigeon River, in
rolling topography underlain by metamorphic gneisses and schists. Elevations along
Reach 1 range from 2525 to 2625 feet. Elevations along Reach 2 range from 2605 to
2695 feet. The upland soils in thearea are well-drained and generally have reddish-
brown, loamy sub-soils (Evard, Fannin, Hayesville Soil Series). The majority of the
uplands are wooded with a few areas in pasture and hayfields.
Driving directions to the site from Waynesville (or Asheville):
Follow 140 West, and take Exit 15 toward Fines Creek. Turn right onto Fines Creek Rd
and follow for 3 miles. Immediately after the Fines Creek School/Library on the left,
turn left onto Kirkpatrick Cove. Morgan Creek will be on the right. Reach 1 ends at the
culvert inlet (where Morgan. Creek crosses beneath Kirkpatrick Cove), and begins at the
next road crossing approximately % of a mile further up Kirkpatrick Cove. Reach 2 ends
near the upstream beginning of Reach 1, and runs upslope to a stand of large trees. The
site is on page 30 of the DeLorme Gazetteer (section 133).
Restoration Means & Methods
To perform the necessary stream restoration along the impaired reaches, natural channel
design methods will be used. The restoration will allow a reconnection of the stream
channel with the adjacent historic floodplain. The restoration design will result in a
riffle-.pool system with proper pattern and profile. Meanders of varying radii will be
integrated along the length of the restored reaches to mimic the variability of a natural
channel and utilize the available project area to the maximum extent possible based on
existing site conditions. The restored channel banks will be planted with native
vegetation that represent both woody (trees and shrubs) and herbaceous species.
As suitable hydric soils already exist, the restoration of riverine wetlands will be
performed through the rehydration of existing hydric soils by routing the restored stream
through these areas (with an appropriate pattern) as well as restoring the potential for

1

x 3.4 w"Yitk
over-bank flooding of these areas. Once grading is complete and in-stream structures
have been installed, suitable wetland vegetation, including tree and shrub species, will be
planted within all restored wetland areas.
Summary of Anticipated Effects
We anticipate that the immediate effects of this project (construction phase)willr u -
ground disturbance within the project area due to the use of heavy machinery to complete
channel construction. Again, this site has historically received extensive ground
disturbance due to livestock and agricultural operations. The long term effects of this
project (post construction) will result in an overall enhancement to the integrity of the
immediate ecosystems and result in long term beneficial effects to fish or wildlife. This
site will also be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement
Should you have any questions or if any additional information is needed to complete
your review, please feel fi-ee to contact me at the office [phone] or on my cell
phone [phone]. Your valuable time and cooperation are much appreciated.
Sincerely,
i
Travis Hamrick, Project Manager
1
Attachments: 2 maps
t
t
53? 1_
y? ll
`} .
V Project Vicinity
I k'.
?t
it -
"h
-Ile -
3 /
41
a°a I f moky Mountains N Overview Map
?n k ?3S„
?_: C,rcaf S s National
?Dr Direction To Morgan Creek:
Follow 1-40 West, and take Exit 15 toward '
Fines Creek Turn right onto Fines Creek
_ Rd and follow for 3 miles. Immediately
f after the Fines Creek School/Library on „r 74 19
1e Ashevitte
0 the left, turn left onto Kirkpatrick Cove.
Morgan Creek will be on the right
Restoration Systems, LLC Figure 1: Moan Creek Stream &
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107 project Wetland Restoration Project 1:24,000
Raleigh, NC 27604 Location Haywood County, NC
1 919.755"9490 0 5001,000 2,000 3;000 4,000
:Feet
I
I
I
I
I
I

1
n
AUG 1 6 Z0B

0 North-Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
August 1, 2006
Travis Hamrick
Restoration Systems, LLC -
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina. 27604
SUBJECT: EEP Wetland and Stream Mitigation Project in Haywood County
Morgan Creek
Dear Mr. Hamrick:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) received your letter
dated July 25, 2006 regarding the Ecosystem Enhancement Program project on Morgan Creek in
Haywood County. Comments from the Commission are provided under provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Morgan Creek is in the Fines Creek watershed. Fines Creek may still support brown and rainbow trout,
though it is currently on the state 303d list of Impaired Waters. Functional restoration of streams and
wetlands m this watershed has the potential to improve trout habitat.
Haywood County is a "trout county" per an. agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) and the Commission. As such, Commission biologists review all Nationwide Permit
applications here and make-recommendations to minimize the adverse effects associated with some
activities, including restoration work Once a permit application is prepared for this project, a copy must
be sent to me in order to solicit Commission concurrence and recommendations for the consideration by
the ALOE.
The Commission does not anticipate any major resource concerns with this project provided
sedimentation from construction- is minimized Instream construction and bank grading; may be
recommended outside of the trout spawning season (October 15 - April 15) in the ACOE permit. Also,
' the stream channel dimensions, patterns, and profiles should reflect stable, reference conditions. Overly
and unnaturally sinuous stream channels should be avoided. The use of balled or container grown trees is
recommended in the outside-of channel bends to expedite long-term bank stability.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If there are any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at [phone] ext. 24.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
t
1
t
1

of
Carolina Thep"se
CLIP '
NORTH CAROLINA
a ?
and/or K" HAYWOOD COUNTY
' thk property, Is to pro-

ide mlllgahon for'
AT-1 v
impacts to streams mid.

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and
from e)as g or futam State, duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to
development in Ilas administer oaths, personally appeared
area. Anyone
al desiring
h
f
i

V
Clz
t
at an in
ormat
on
?.????,?
'• ee* be Wd e-1141-'r
Z4 who being first
duly s orn, dqw xt that he (ilk) is
for dis propciied aft
may make such a
request by registered let-
ter c/o ftm Pot" to co .?. t . w aakt a uxlwr, a , n ,, ,?,,„t)
Restoration Systems j
located at 1101 flloynes; of THE MOUNTAINEER

Street (Suite 107)
i engaged in the publication of a newspaper known as THE MOUNTAINEER
s
,
Raleigh
NC 27604.! publi
hed, issued, and entered as second class mad in the City of
W
Y
,
Request must be made' A
NESVILLE
in avid County and Star; that he (she) is authorized to make this affidavit and

P
N

otke by Auglxt 26, 2006. (f'

adMinal Warmalien is sworn statement; that dw notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of

which is attached hereto, was published in THE MOUNTAINEER on du:-fol-
NOTICE.OF OPPORTU- required, 0ease carded'
Kristen RAW at 919- lowtn
LAITY -FOR AN
TIONAE PU611 INFORIf A,
C ME
IIN6 155.9490. The NC La Q
E
ON THE PURC1fASE °ANQ [nh
anCeMeof
a4d she newspaper in whidt sttdt notice, paper, doamwtr, or legal
OR USE OF PROPERTY
FOR THE RESTORATION Program reserves the
?t to determine N a =avertisement was published was, at the time of each and eery such publia-
Lion, a newspaper mating au of the requirements and qualifications of

OF STREAMS AN TI public meeting MIDI) be Section 1-597 of the G.:,A Statures of North Carolina and was a qualified
newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of
N
h C
Haywood County -
m S
Re
t
mf
tems
- No_ 25758 July 26,
2006 °tt
-fina.
Thi
s
o
i
ys
pro
t
d s of 20V
poses
o pur
iase
uad/ar use a 15`+/-
carre,,,_trad of 6d in
Haywood Co", North dP- d-i
Swor
d
b
d b
f
n to an
su
e
e
ore me, this
day of 2(}
r
MyCo "one mirc,
oary Public
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

Issued, by
THE MOUNTAINEER
Waynesville, NC 28786
?' ts
'I : z
;s

MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE RESTORATIONPLAN

1
Appendix H
Wetland Data Sheets
1
1
1
NCEEP January 2008
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
ProjectlSite: Morgan Creek/ S&EC# 10150. D1 -Reach #2ANL 1 Date: 11-01-06
Applicant/Owner: Ferguson County: Haywood.
Investigator: KM, DCl State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: Montane Alluvial Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? X Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot 113: WL 1
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant, Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. JuncuS effuses Herb FACW+ 9". Lonicera japonica Vine FAC-
2 Efeocharis sp.. Herb OBL, 10. Garex sp: Herb OBL
3: Liriodendron tulipffera Tree FAG 11. Sofidaoo sp Herb FAC
Undera benzoin Shrub FACW 12.
5. Rubus sp. Herb FAG 13,
fi. Agrimania parviflora Herb FAG 14.
7. Harnamelts vitgfniana Shrub FACU 15.
Rosa rnultlRora Shrub UPL 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-)t 73%
Remarks`
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data. (Describe in Remarks):
_ 'Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary ndicators
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in) Water-Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in. Pit. 2 (in;) X FAC-Neutral Test
T
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Remarks:
1

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
11 ProjectLSite: Morgan Creek/ S&EC# 10150, D1 -Reach #2NVL 1 Plot ID: WL 1
AM S
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Poorly
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? X Yes _ No
Profile Descrfption:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moiat)_.. (Munsell_Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-4 A. p 10YR 012 Sand loam
-4-14+ A 1 OYR 6/2 Sand loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Hisoc Epipedon
- 'High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidie Qdor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
X 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:
1
.1
- WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes _ No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes, No X Yes No
Hydric Soils Present?' X Yes No
Remarks: While slight variations were observed in other wetland areas, Wetland 1 is generally representative of vegetation,
hydrology and soil conditions observed in Wetlands 2 and 2A. Wetlands 2 and 2A did however exhibit less woody vegetation than
that of Wetland 1. Wetlands 2 and 2A were also observed to be severely degraded by human activities.

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
1 DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

t
1-
1-
1
1
1
1
Project/Site:: Morgan Creek/ S&EC#'10150. D1 -Reach #1/WL 6 Date: 11-01-06
ApplicantlOwner. Ferguson County: Haywood
Investigator: KM, DCI State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: Montane Alluvial Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? X Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: 1NL 6,
ff needed, ex lain on reverse::
VEGETAMN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
- Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Juncus effusus Herb C +
A 9':
. Festuca-,sp Herb FACU 10.
3. Vemonia noveboracensis Herb FAC+ 11.
. Carex:sp. Herb: OBL; 12:
5. Solidago sp Herb FAG 13.
6. Rubus sp. Shrub FAC 14.
7. 15.
11. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species'that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding PAC-): 83%
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remar(ks):
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetfand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches.
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: _
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in,) _ Water-Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in pit; 7 (in;) X FAC-Neutral Test
T
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 (in.)
17L
t
- - Wetland Delineation Performed By-. Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
I 1010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]

PMorgan Creek / S&EC# 10150, D1 - Reach #1/WL 6 Plot ID: WL 6
' SOILS _J1
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Poorl y
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Field Observations
Taxonomy, (S-ubgroup): Curnulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? X Yes No
Profile Descri tiion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions;
inches Horizon LMunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Str ucture, etc.
04 A p 10YR 4/2 Sand loam
2-12 A 1OYR 6/1 Sand loam
Hydrlc Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedbn
T High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
'SulfidicOdor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X'. Listed on National Hyd c Soils List
X Gleyed. or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
IL-
I
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes - No Is this sampling paint within a.wedand?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes T No X Yes ` No
Hyd6d Soils Present? X Yes. No
Remarks: While slight variations were observed in other wetland areas, Weband'6 is generally representative of vegetation,
hydrology, and soil conditions observed in Wetlands 4, 5, and 6A. All wetland areas were observed to be severely degraded by
human activities.

1
1
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND` DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morgan Creek/ S&EC# 10150.. D1 -Reach #11WL 7 Date: 11-01-06
Applicant/Owner: Ferguson County: , Haywood
Investigator: KM, DCI State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: Montane Alluvial Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? X Yes No Transect ID:
is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID WL 7
if needed, explain on reverse.),
11
1 VEGETATION

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species. Stratum Indicator
1. ,luncus eflusus Herb FACW+ 9:
2. Festuca sp. Herb FACU
3. Vemonla noveboracensis Herb FAC+ 11-.
. Carex sp. Herb OBL 1'2'
5, Rosa multlflora Shrub UPL 13.
6. Rubus sp. Shrub' FAC', 14:
P,olygonum,
7. pennsylvanicum Herb FACW 15.
8. Solidago sp. Hertz FAC 16`.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 75%
Remarks,.
HYDROLOGY

_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks);
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
(Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydroiogy Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X 'Saturated in:Upper 12 Inches
_ 'Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X . Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth, of Surface Water. NA (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit_ 2 (in,) X FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)'
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Remarks:
1
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Morgan Creek / S&EC# 10150. D'1 - Reach #1'/WL 7 Plot ID: WL 7
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: poorly
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? Yes X No
Profile Description:
Depth
inches Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Color
(Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture,
Abundance/Contrast Str

0-8 Ap
1OYR"3/2 ui

&12+ Sar
_ Btu 1 OYR 512 1 OYR 516 Few distinct ' C1

Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
X Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks: More like Hemphill series (umbric e
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
X. Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain In Remarks)
from texture standpoint but not umbric
-r- I Lmub Ut I tKMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes - No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes - No X; Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No
Remarks: While slight variations were observed in other wetland areas, Wetland 7 is generally representative of vegetation,
hydrology; and soil conditions observed in Wetlands 7A, 8, and 9. All wetland areas were observed to be
severely degraded by
human activities.
.

t
1
1
Weiland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Morgan Creek/ S&EC# 10150. D1 - Reach #11WL 11 Date: 11-01-06
Applicant/Owner: Ferguson County: Haywood
Investigator: KM', DCI State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: Montane Alluvial Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? X Yes
No Transect ID:
_
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
No Plot 1D: WL 11
_
if needed, explain on reverse.
1 VEGETATION
a
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I. Juncuseffusus Herb FACW+ S.
2: S61foago sp. Herb FAC' 10.
Cacex sp. Herb OBL 11.
Vemonia noveboracensis Herb FAC+ 12.
Polygonum
pennsyNsnicum Herb FACW 13.
6. Agdmohia parviflora Herb FAC' 14.
7. Rebus sp; Shrub FAC 15.
$': Smilax notundifolia Vine FAC 16.
Percent of'Dominant. Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-y 100%
Remarks:
1 HYDROLOGY

_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):"
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_ Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary l'ndicattrs:
_ Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
' Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field` Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in. Pit: 3 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Remarks:
t
1
1
1-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Morgan Creek / S&EC# 10150, D1 - Reach #1/WL 11 Plot ID: WL 11
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage: Class: oori
(Series and Phase): Nikwasi Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? Yes _X No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
inches Horizon (MUnsell Moist) Mottle Color Mottle
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure,, etc.
0-10_ 10YR 3/2 Sand loam
10-14+ Btg 10YR 6/2 10 YR 5/6 Few distinct Clay loam
Hydric'Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Eptpedon High Organic Content n Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
X Aquic; Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing; Conditicins
' X Listed on National Hydric Soils'List
X Gleyed
orLow Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: More like Hemphill series (umbric Endoaqualf) from texture standpoint but not umbric
L-
j
WFTI ANRR nFTFRMIrJATrnM
H.ydroPh ytis Vegetation Present?" X' Yes _ No is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Preseritl X Yes - No X Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes _ No
Remarks While slight variations were observed in other wetland areas, Wetland 11 Is generally representative of vegetation
,
hydrology, and soil conditions observed in Wetlands 3 and 10. All wetland areas Were observed to be severely degraded by human
activities. 11
i
i
i
i
t
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
RESTORATION PLAN
Appendix I
Design Sheets
NCEEP January 2008