20080833 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20080515

FINAL STREAM & WETLAND
RESTORATION PLAN
For The
FLETCHER-MERITOR SITE
(UT TO CANE CREEK)
FLETCHER, HENDERSON COUNTY, NC
STATE CONSTRUCTION NO: D05039S
PROJECT NO: EP4260721
i
l?]1 m.
?III21141 L'C'Ilt
FRQUR M
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
919.715.0476
FEBRUARY 15, 2008
PREPARED FOR:
FINAL STREAM & WETLAND
RESTORATION PLAN
For The
FLETCHER-MERITOR SITE (UT TO CANE CREEK)
FLETCHER, HENDERSON COUNTY, NC
STATE CONSTRUCTION NO: D05039S
PROJECT NO: EP4260721
PREPARED BY:
fal
HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
PROJECT MANAGER:
Jonathan Henderson, PE
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
FINAL STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
FOR THE
FLETCHER - MERITOR SITE (UT TO CANE CREEK)
HENDERSON COUNTY, NC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ES-1
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION .........................................1-1
1.1 Directions to Project and Reference Reach Sites ............................................... 1-1
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin Designations ........... 1-1
1.3 Project Vicinity Map .......................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................2-1
2.1 Drainage Area ........................................................................... ......................... 2-1
2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality ........................... ......................... 2-1
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils ............................................ ......................... 2-1
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ......................... ......................... 2-2
2.5 Endangered / Threatened Species .............................................. ......................... 2-3
2.6 Cultural Resources .................................................................... ......................... 2-3
2.7 Potential Constraints ................................................................. ......................... 2-3
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ............................. ......................... 2-3
2.7.2 Site Access ................................................................... ......................... 2-3
2.7.3 Utilities ......................................................................... ......................... 2-3
2.7.4 FEMA / Hydrologic Trespass ...................................... ......................... 2-4
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ...................................... 3-1
3.1 Channel Classification .................................................................................. ...... 3-1
3.2 Discharge ...................................................................................................... ......3-2
3.3 Channel Morphology .................................................................................... ...... 3-2
3.3.1 Existing Morphology Methodology ................................................ ...... 3-2
3.3.2 Planform .......................................................................................... ...... 3-2
3.3.3 Cross Sections ................................................................................. ...... 3-2
3.3.4 Channel Stability Assessment ......................................................... ...... 3-3
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment ...................................................................... ...... 3-3
3.5 Bankfull Verification .................................................................................... ...... 3-4
3.5.1 USGS Gage Data ............................................................................. ...... 3-4
3.5.2 North Carolina Regime Analysis .................................................... ...... 3-4
3.5.3 Manning's Equation-Based Estimation of Bankfull Discharge ...... ...... 3-5
3.6 Vegetation .................................................................................................... ...... 3-6
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS ............................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Watershed Characterization ........................................ ....................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Orton Branch .................................................. ....................................... 4-1
4.1.2 UT to Little River ........................................... ....................................... 4-1
4.2 Channel Classification ................................................. ....................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Orton Branch .................................................. ....................................... 4-2
4.2.2 UT to Little River ........................................... ....................................... 4-2
4.3 Discharge ............................................................................................................ 4-2
4.4 Channel Morphology .......................................................................................... 4-2
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment ............................................................................ 4-3
4.6 Bankfull Verification .......................................................................................... 4-3
4.7 Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 4-3
4.7.1 Orton Branch ......................................................................................... 4-3
4.7.2 UT to Little River .................................................................................. 4-4
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS .................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ...................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Hydrological Characterization ........................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Soil Characterization .......................................................................................... 5-1
5.4 Plant Community Characterization .................................................................... 5-1
6.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS ........................................................................................ 6-1
6.1 Hydrological Characterization ........................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Soil Characterization .......................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Plant Community Characterization .................................................................... 6-1
7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN .................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Designed Channel Classification ........................................................... 7-1
7.1.2 Target Buffer Communities ................................................................... 7-3
7.2 Sediment Transport Analysis ............................................................................. 7-3
7.2.1 Methodology ......................................................................................... 7-3
7.2.2 Calculations and Discussion .................................................................. 7-4
7.3 HEC-RAS Analysis ............................................................................................ 7-4
7.3.1 No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR ..................................................................... 7-4
7.3.2 Hydrologic Trespass .............................................................................. 7-5
7.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices (Not Relevant to this Plan) ................ 7-5
7.5 Hydrologic Modifications .................................................................................. 7-5
7.6 Soil Restoration .................................................................................................. 7-5
7.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration ............................................................... 7-5
7.7.1 Narrative and Plant Community Restoration ........................................ 7-6
7.7.2 Onsite Invasive Species ......................................................................... 7-7
7.7.3 Invasive Species Control ....................................................................... 7-7
8.0 STREAM PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MONITORING PLAN ................. 8-1
8.1 Streams ...............................................................................................................8-1
8.2 Stormwater Management Devices (Not Relevant to this Plan) .......................... 8-2
8.3 Wetlands .............................................................................................................8-2
8.4 Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 8-2
8.5 Schedule / Reporting .......................................................................................... 8-2
9.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 9-1
10.0 TABLES
Table 1 Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Table 2a Drainage Areas and Other Parameters
Table 2b Bankfull Discharges
Table 2c Regional Curve Comparison
Table 2d Stream Power and Unit Stream Power
Table 3 Project Watershed Land Use
Table 4 Stream Morphological Parameters
Table 5 Federally Listed Species for Henderson County (5/10/07)
Table 6 Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank (Restoration Site)
Table 7 Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank (Orton Branch)
Table 8 Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank (UT to Little River)
Table 9a Designated Vegetative Communities (by Zone)
Table 9b Planting Zones and Spacing
11.0 FIGURES
Figure 1 Restoration Site Vicinity
Figure 2 Restoration Site Watershed
Figure 3 Restoration Site Soils
Figure 4 Restoration Site Watershed Land Use
Figure 5 Local DWQ Monitoring Sites
Figure 6a Orton Branch Reference Reach Site
Figure 6b UT to Little River Reference Reach Site
Figure 7a Orton Branch Reference Reach Watershed
Figure 7b UT to Little River Reference Reach Watershed
Figure 8a Orton Branch Reference Reach Soils
Figure 8b UT to Little River Reference Reach Soils
Figure 9a Orton Branch Reference Reach Watershed Land Use
Figure 9b UT to Little River Reference Reach Watershed Land Use
Figure IOa Orton Branch Reference Reach Vegetative Communities
Figure I Ob UT to Little River Reference Reach Vegetative Communities
12.0 RESTORATION SHEETS
Sheet 1 Existing Channel or Site Conditions
la Existing Conditions Planform
lb Existing Conditions Planform
lc Existing Conditions Planform
Id Existing Longitudinal Profile
le Existing Longitudinal Profile
Sheet 2 Design Channel Alignment
2a Typical Sections
2b Proposed Alignment Planform
2c Proposed Alignment Planform
2d Proposed Alignment Planform
Sheet 3 Design Longitudinal Profile
3a Upper Main Stem
3b Lower Main Stem
3c Tributary
Sheet 4 Designed Vegetative Communities Map by Zone
4a Proposed Planting Zones
4b Proposed Planting Zones
4c Proposed Planting Zones
13.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A Restoration Site Photographs (UT to Cane Creek)
Appendix B Reference Site Photographs (Orton Branch)
Appendix C Reference Site Photographs (UT to Little River)
Appendix D HEGRAS
Appendix E NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms for UT to Cane Creek, Orton
Branch and UT to Little River
Appendix F Monitoring Well Data
Appendix G Entrainment Calculations
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
The following Restoration Plan was developed by HDR Engineering, Inc of the Carolinas and
utilized Joel Johnson Land Surveying, Inc. for the existing reach topographic survey.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project site is located in the northern extents of Henderson County, near the Town of
Fletcher, North Carolina (Figure 1). The 93-acre restoration property tract is owned by the Town
of Fletcher and is located approximately 500 feet to the west of US 25 and along the north side of
Rockwell Drive within the 100-year floodplain of Cane Creek, which drains to the French Broad
River (Figure 2). The site can be reached by taking US 25 north from Hendersonville or south
from Asheville and turning west on Rockwell Drive. A gravel road provides access into the tract
along the southwest perimeter of the site and crosses the Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Cane Creek
at a culvert crossing (see Figure 3).
Cane Creek is a North Carolina Class C stream that is listed upstream of US 25 as impaired on
the 303(d) list for North Carolina (NCDWQ 2005). In addition, the smaller 1st and 2nd order
tributaries to Cane Creek targeted for restoration work in this report drain lands with significant
non-point source impacts to water quality from agriculture, industrial/commercial development,
and historical clay strip mining. The tract borders approximately 3,500 feet of Cane Creek,
contains approximately 3,400 linear feet of unnamed jurisdictional tributaries to Cane Creek, and
includes approximately 5,000 linear feet of agricultural drainage ditches. The unnamed
jurisdictional tributaries are all channelized and represent the primary targets for restoration work
(the 2nd order tributary running east-west is referred to as the Main Stem, the 1st order tributary
running north-south into the Main Stem is called the Tributary). In addition, the restoration will
promote and enhance floodplain detention with the restoration of approximately 6.34 acres of
bottomland forest wetland habitat (no jurisdictional wetlands currently exist onsite).
In the upper portion of the Main Stem of UT to Cane Creek, approximately 1,520 linear feet of
the channelized reach will be restored to a natural planform resulting in an increased length of
approximately 1,894 linear feet of meandering C/E-type stream. This Priority II restoration
strategy includes building a bankfull bench (ranging from 12 to 15 feet in width) along each side
of a meandering channel to the stream's confluence with the Tributary. The bankfull bench will
slope up at an 8:1 slope in order to reduce the amount of cut for the entire project. A Priority II
restoration approach will also be employed to build a floodplain bench ranging from 13 to 17 feet
in width along the Main Stem from the confluence with the Tributary to the confluence with Cane
Creek (currently approximately 1,320 linear feet). This 1,802 linear foot designed reach will also
be a meandering C/E-type channel that must tie into the current elevation of Cane Creek. The
various tributaries to the UT will be approached in two ways: two ditches will be plugged or
rerouted to help restore the hydrology of two onsite, currently non jurisdictional wetlands
(approximately 6.34 acres), and the Tributary (a small, 1st order, perennial channelized reach
approximately 550 linear feet) will be restored to create approximately 648 linear feet of
meandering channel using a Priority 11 approach (see Table 1).
The goal of this restoration project is to improve local water quality and restore aquatic and
riparian habitat. The objectives of the Restoration Project focus on restoring approximately 2,840
linear feet of a degraded section of UT to Cane Creek and 550 linear feet of an associated
tributary to stable 3,700 and 648 linear foot channels using natural channel restoration
methodologies as well as reestablishing hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation to 6.34 acres of
historical wetlands. This will be accomplished by:
Final Restoration Plan ES-1 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
¦ Reestablishing stream stability and capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment load
by restoring stable channel morphology, supported with instream habitat and grade/bank
stabilization structures;
¦ Reducing non-point source sedimentation and nutrient inputs into the identified project
reaches through the elimination of accelerated bank erosion and reestablishment of native
riparian buffer;
¦ Enhancing the capacity of the stream system, by building a bankfull bench and restoring
wetlands for attenuation and water quality benefits; and
¦ Reestablishing the floodplain connectivity by creating the floodplain bench at existing
elevations.
The proposed benefits from the stream and floodplain restoration include water quality
improvement, habitat enhancement and restoration, stream stability, and opportunities for
education. These benefits are individually discussed below:
Water Quality - The primary water quality improvement goal of this restoration effort will
be to restore natural stream morphologies that will promote long-term stability and thus
potentially improve downstream water quality and biological conditions. Secondly, the
restoration plan is proposed to restore floodplain and bottomland wetland habitat areas
adjacent to the streams. The proposed improvements in the floodplain will promote water
quality goals by three means: a) enhance groundwater storage that augments baseflow and
interstorm stream water quality, b) intercept and treat overland storm runoff from the adjacent
farm and industrial properties, and c) receive overbank flow from the existing stream
channels and drainage ditches, which provides additional stormwater treatment.
Aquatic and Wetland Habitat - The proposed restoration plan will restore up to 6.34 acres
of bottomland hardwood and approximately 3,390 linear feet of 1St and 2nd order perennial
stream aquatic habitat. The combined stream and wetland restoration will provide an
integrated multifunctional stream corridor that supports a robust matrix of natural habitats.
Currently, 90 percent or more of the land is under row-crop agriculture with only a few feet
of scrub/shrub lining the banks of the stream channels.
Stream Stability - Approximately 3,400 linear feet of existing, previously-channelized 1st
and 2nd order streams are available for restoration by returning them to natural Rosgen C/E-
type channels to promote long-term channel stability. This restoration will attempt to reverse
the impacts of the drainage ditches that currently exist on the property, decreasing
downstream peak discharges, and associated bank and sediment erosion problems.
Education - The Town of Fletcher has proposed to develop a recreational facility on-site,
including a greenway and park with a conservation/educational component. No time table
has been set for this development.
Final Restoration Plan ES-2 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
The project site is located in the northern extents of Henderson County, near the Town of
Fletcher, North Carolina (Figure 1). The 93-acre restoration property tract is owned by the Town
of Fletcher and is located approximately 500 feet to the west of US 25 and along the north side of
Rockwell Drive (Figure 2). The tract lies within the 100-year floodplain of Cane Creek. The site
can be reached by taking US 25 north from Hendersonville or south from Asheville and turning
west on Rockwell Drive. A gravel/dirt road allows access to the tract along its southwest
perimeter and crosses the Unnamed Tributary to Cane Creek Main Stem at a culvert (see Figure
3).
1.1 Directions to Project and Reference Reach Sites
To Project Site (Henderson County) From I-26: Merge onto US-25 N (US-25 Business) via Exit
44 toward FLETCHER/ MOUNTAIN HOME, go 1.3 miles and turn left onto ROCKWELL
DRIVE toward the industrial park. Continue on ROCKWELL DRIVE approximately 0.4 miles,
then right onto a dirt/gravel road into the farm fields.
To Orton Branch Reference Reach Site (Buncombe County) From 1-26: Take Exit 37 for NC-
146 (LONG SHOALS ROAD) toward SKYLAND, travel west on NC-146 for 0.5 miles, turn
right onto CLAYTON ROAD for 1.3 miles, and then turn right onto NC-191 for approximately
0.2 miles. Orton Branch crosses under NC-191 and the reference reach is located to the east of
the road crossing. There is a gravel pull off to park on the right side of the road.
To Unnamed TributM (UT) to Little River Reference Reach Site (Transylvania County) From
US-64/US-276 in Brevard: Continue on US-276 to the east for approximately 11 miles and then
turn left onto CASCADE LAKES ROAD for 350 feet. Turn right onto REASONOVER ROAD.
Continue on REASONOVER ROAD 2.8 miles to a parking area adjacent to DUPONT STATE
FOREST. Once at the State Forest, take the CONSERVATION ROAD TRAIL approximately 2
miles to the BRIDAL VEIL FALLS ROAD TRAIL for approximately 0.5 miles (These trails are
gated and locked; contact DuPont State Forest for vehicular access). The stream is located four
hundred feet north of the parking area for Bridal Veil Falls.
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin Designations
Cane Creek and its tributaries lie within the French Broad River Basin of the North Carolina
Mountains Physiographic Province. This basin's 8-digit United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Hydrologic Unit number is 06010105 within the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) subbasin 04-03-02. The reach is ungaged, with the closest USGS gage station
within the HUC at USGS Gage Station 403447687 (35°25.73' N, 82°33.17'), located on the
French Broad River just upstream of the Cane Creek confluence, near Fletcher, North Carolina.
1.3 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1 shows the location of the site, southwest of Asheville near the Town of Fletcher, and
Figure 2 shows the site's location on the Skyland quadrangle. Rockwell Drive is a two lane road
to access an industrial complex just to the south of the project site. A dirt/gravel road on the right
provides access to the site and parking.
Final Restoration Plan 1-1 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area
The watershed area for the unnamed tributaries to Cane Creek (Main Stem and Tributary) is
shown in Figure 4. The Main Stem, above the confluence with the Tributary, drains an
approximate 0.75-square mile watershed to the southeast and the Tributary drains approximately
0.32 square miles to the south.
2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality
NCDWQ assigns surface water classifications in order to help protect, maintain, and preserve
water quality. The water quality of unnamed tributaries to Cane Creek on the restoration tract is
not rated in the Draft French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (Basinwide Plan)
(NCDWQ 2005). However, east (upstream) of the project area, Cane Creek is currently rated as
impaired from Ashworth Creek to Cushion Branch (9.6 miles), which is based on a "Fair"
bioclassification and indication of declining trends macroinvertibrate data collected just upstream
from the SR1006 crossing, at macroinvertibrate sampling point B-6. From Cushion Branch to the
French Broad River (2.4 miles), the stream is rated as supporting due to a "Good"
bioclassification at fish sampling point F-3. The tributaries to Cane Creek contribute to the area
that is classified as supporting at this time. As outlined in the Basinwide Plan, Cane Creek has
been identified by NCEEP as one of 28 local watersheds in the basin with the greatest need and
opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. The restoration work proposed herein
follows this identified set of needs and opportunities.
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The site lies within the Brevard Fault Zone of the North Carolina Mountains Physiography
Province. Geologic maps are available at the 1:24,000 scale for both the Skyland and Fruitland
USGS 6.5 min. quadrangles that bracket the restoration site (Lemmons and Dunn 1973; Dabbagh
and McDaniel 1981). There are three aspects of the geology of the area that are relevant to the
restoration effort. First, the entirety of the restoration tract is located within unconsolidated
Quaternary Alluvium (poorly to well sorted stream deposits of gravel, sand, silt, and clay) that are
highly erodible, with little to no cohesive strengths. Second, the maps indicate that most of the
watershed areas are located within the Brevard Fault Zone, a zone of highly sheared and
recrystallized rocks that are more erodible than the surrounding protolith metamorphic
assemblages and which generally produce clay rich soils upon weathering. The broad lowlands
within the central-northeast trending corridor of Cane Creek trace out these more erodible units
within the fault zone. Thus, in some respects, the streams within the lower elevation areas are
comparable to streams within the North Carolina Piedmont Province. Third, within the lower
portions of the Skyland quadrangle, between Fletcher and Hendersonville, there is a historical
area of clay strip mining that lies within the catchment areas for the two unnamed tributaries
included in this restoration project.
According to the Soil Survey of Henderson County (King 1980), the predominant soil groups
found within the contributing watershed include Comus, Kinkora, and Codorus (see Figure 3).
Kinkora is listed as a hydric soil for the county, and Codorus is listed as having hydric inclusions
of Toxaway and Hatboro soils (Gregory 2004).
Comus soils (Coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Fluventic Dystrudepts) consist of very deep,
well drained soils on floodplains. They formed in recent alluvium and are high in mica. These
Final Restoration Plan 2-1 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
soils are well drained and permeability is moderate in the solum and moderate to moderately
rapid in the 2C horizon. Slopes range from 0 to 8 percent.
Kinkora soils (Fine, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic Endoaquults) consist of very deep, poorly
drained soils that formed in old fine-textured alluvium. These soils are on nearly level to gently
sloping stream terraces within the northern Piedmont Plateau and in parts of the Blue Ridge
Mountains. Kinkora soils are poorly drained and permeability is slow in the solum and moderate
or moderately rapid in the underlying material.
Codorus soils (Fine-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts) consist of very deep,
moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained soils. These soils formed in recently
deposited alluvial materials derived from upland soil materials weathered from mostly
metamorphic and crystalline rocks. They are on floodplains with smooth, nearly level slopes of 0
to 3 percent. These soils range from moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained with
moderate permeability (USDA 2007).
Although, no detailed geotechnical investigations have been performed, encounters with bedrock
during construction are not anticipated due the channel's location on the large floodplain. No
bedrock is present in the existing channel. Only small amounts of gravel and cobble from historic
fluvial events were revealed when soil borings were taken during the assessment phase.
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The land use/land cover within the overall Cane Creek watershed has been outlined within the
NCDWQ Basinwide Plan for the French Broad River Basin, and is largely undeveloped (>70
percent forest land) with subordinate farm and urban lands mostly found within the lower valley
floor environs. A 2006 high altitude aerial photograph (Figure 4) was interpreted to classify the
land cover types in order to understand the hydrologic and stream morphologic impacts of land
use and land cover changes. The results from the land cover analysis are included in Table 3.
Approximately 20 percent of the Project Site watershed is undeveloped (forested) land, and the
remainder is roughly an equal mix of impervious cover (roads and rooftops) and cleared pervious
lands under tillage or representing pasture and lawns. Within the pervious land cover lie cleared
lands with little vegetation along the southwest perimeter of the catchment area.
According to the Basinwide Plan, the French Broad River Subbasin is expected to experience the
largest increase in population growth within Buncombe and Henderson Counties. Population
growth in these counties is anticipated to occur around Asheville and Hendersonville. The
project site is centrally located between Asheville and Hendersonville, and thus land use trends
are expected to lead to additional development and further increases in impervious cover and
storm water impacts within the individual watersheds.
One distinction of the tributaries located in this project is that approximately 60 percent of the
watershed areas for the unnamed tributaries lie in the more developed low-lying central corridor
of the Cane Creek watershed, and thus are more impacted by development than most watersheds
of similar size in the region. A second distinction between these unnamed tributaries and most
others of comparable watershed area in the Mountain physiographic province of North Carolina is
that they fall within Rosgen E-type morphologic settings. This is due to a combination of two
factors. First, these are small 1St and 2nd order streams traversing the floodplain of a much higher
order stream (Cane Creek, with an 80-square mile drainage area), and second, their watersheds lie
within an unusual 1- to 1.5-mile wide northeast-trending geologic belt known as the Brevard
Fault Zone. The intensely deformed rocks found within this belt are less resistant to the forces of
Final Restoration Plan 2-2 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
erosion, and thus on geologic time scales have produced lower elevation and more gentle
topography with streams that have more of a North Carolina Piedmont character.
The project site has been under continuous agricultural production for more than 50 years. A
1951 NRCS aerial photograph was reviewed as a historical reference. At that time, the reaches
were channelized in essentially the same positions they are at present. There appeared to be little
or no riparian vegetation along the channels. Most of the drainage ditches that are currently
present on site were also present in 1951.
2.5 Endangered / Threatened Species
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database was conducted to
determine the presence of any rare, threatened, or endangered species or critical habitats on or
near the site. The NHP and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) records show
seven federally-listed threatened or endangered species and two species listed as Candidate (a
taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support
listing) occurring in Henderson County, which are shown in the Table 5.
Due to the project site being significantly altered from the adjacent agricultural uses, suitable
habitat is not available for the listed species. However, the restoration of this stream system
could increase or create suitable habitat for some of these species in the distant future.
2.6 Cultural Resources
A review of available records at the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - State
Historic Preservation Office was conducted to examine known resources located proximal to the
project site. A review of available records from the National Register of Historic Places indicates
only one listing within Fletcher (NPS 2005). This historic resource (The Meadows) is located
north of Fletcher on SR 1547 well outside of the project area.
2.7 Potential Constraints
2.7.1 Property Boundary and Ownership
No issues regarding boundary location or ownership are anticipated for this project. The
93-acre project tract lies within the 100-year floodplain of Cane Creek. It is located on a
parcel owned by the Town of Fletcher, which has plans to use the land in the future as a
greenway/park.
2.7.2 Site Access
Site access is not an issue as road infrastructure is adequate to support temporary access
for construction from Rockwell Road.
2.7.3 Utilities
A NPDES-permitted wastewater discharge outfall from Fletcher Warehousing (formerly
Cranston Print Works) runs along the Main Stem within the tract. The location of this
line is shown on Existing Conditions Sheet 1. The majority of the stream restoration
moves the channel laterally away from the existing line, with sufficient offset to allow for
a 30-foot wide conservation buffer. In addition, the existing line is a 24" clay pipe which
Final Restoration Plan 2-3 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
has numerous holes in it across the field and, according to our conversations with EEP
and Town staff, is no longer actively producing treated wastewater from the permitted
facility.
The preferred alternative for this restoration would be to take the outfall pipe out of
service at the upper reaches of the project and discharge it into a created wetland;
however, this alternative is not feasible as this permitted discharge may be required in the
future. The current plan addresses the need to improve the pipe at a new stream crossing
location, which will require replacing an 80-120 foot section of clay pipe with ductile
iron pipe and necessary footings.
2.7.4 FEMA / Hydrologic Trespass
The stream restoration site is located within the 100-year floodplain of Cane Creek, as
determined by the Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Detailed Study and
shown on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) effective March 1, 1982 (Appendix D). No
development, including stream restoration, within the regulated floodplain may impact
the 100-year flood levels, and the proposed design shall follow this requirement. The
"No Rise" Certificate will be prepared as required to demonstrate that the proposed
stream restoration does not affect the 100-year flood levels.
The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and FIRM were obtained in the data preparation phase.
The HEC 2 model used to determine the FIS water surface elevations was requested from
the FEMA's Project Library (Library). The Library provided only the hard copy of the
output data (containing flows and velocities for modeled storm frequency events, see
Appendix D) and does not include any physical data, such as model cross sections,
structures (bridges and culverts), stream characteristics (roughness coefficients), etc.
No action with FEMA will be required for this project. A HEC-RAS analysis will be
performed to ensure no increase in water surface elevations on site. The stream is not in a
detailed study and the construction plans will maintain a cut-fill balance within the
regulated floodplain.
Final Restoration Plan 2-4 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAM
3.1 Channel Classification
Rosgen's Applied River Morphology (1996) techniques on stream morphology and classification
were used to evaluate and classify the restoration reaches. Stream width-to-depth ratio,
entrenchment ratio, slope, sinuosity, and channel material are needed to complete this Rosgen-
based classification of streams. All of these parameters are used to determine the current
condition of the channel, classify the stream, and aid in design.
The following definitions are provided for the five criteria:
¦ Width-to-depth ratio: the ratio of the bankfull width to the mean depth of the bankfull
channel. This indicates the channel's ability to dissipate energy and transport sediment.
¦ Entrenchment ratio: the vertical containment of the stream and the degree to which the
channel is incised in the valley floor. This indicates the stream's ability to access its
floodplain.
¦ Slope: the change in water surface elevation per unit of stream length. The slope can be
analyzed over the entire reach or over sections (determine the condition of pools/riffles).
¦ Sinuosity: the ratio of stream length to valley length. Extremely low sinuosity channels in the
piedmont of North Carolina typically indicate a straightened channel.
¦ Channel bed and bank materials indicate the channel's resistance to hydraulic stress and
ability to transport sediment (Rosgen 1996).
Typical measurements for the longitudinal profile survey as well as pool and riffle cross-sections
include, but are not limited to:
¦ thalweg
¦ edge of water
¦ water surface
¦ bankfull
¦ top of low bank
¦ terrace
¦ width (bankfull, top of channel, flow)
¦ depth (mean, bankfull, max)
¦ bank slope
¦ width of flood prone area
¦ belt width
¦ valley length
¦ straight length
¦ pool-to-pool spacing
¦ bankfull area
¦ composition of channel materials
Because of artificial digging and modification of channels and ditches on site, there were few
morphological characteristics to be drawn from a natural channel design standpoint. In addition
to those modifications, an active population of beavers on the stream have caused ponding
allowing for sediment deposition and decreased habitat.
Based on collection of the previous criteria and measurements, it was determined that the reach
would be classified as a degraded or impaired G channel. G streams are single thread channels
that are deeply entrenched, typically have low to moderate sinuosity, and low width to depth
ratios. In stable conditions the UT to Cane Creek would most likely be a C/E stream-type which
are often located in wide valleys, have well developed floodplains with slight entrenchment, are
relatively sinuous, and generally have a riffle/pool sequence on the average one-half meander
wavelength. The slopes on these streams are 2% or less, width/depth ratios near 12, and sinuosity
should exceed 1.2. C/E streams can be significantly altered and rapidly de-stabilized when the
effects of imposed changes in bank stability, watershed condition, or flow regime are combined
and exceed the channel's stability threshold. This appears to be the case for UT to Cane Creek
Final Restoration Plan 3-1 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
which shows signs of past human alteration including channelization to allow for agricultural
practices.
3.2 Discharge
The methodology used for the hydrologic analysis required evaluation of the existing bankfull
discharge by assessing the onsite bankfull indicators, the North Carolina Rural Piedmont
Discharge Curve (Harman et al 1999), and Manning's Equation. The discharge estimate and
methods are discussed in detail in Section 3.5 of this document.
3.3 Channel Morphology
3.3.1 Existing Morphology Methodology
In order to demonstrate the current levels of impairment along the project reach, the
following steps have been taken:
¦ Planform maps of the reach were created by field surveys using a total station.
¦ Characteristic locations for collection of cross section data were identified and
then surveyed using tape, stadia rod, and transit.
¦ A profile of the thalweg was measured.
¦ A BEHI survey of the banks along of the reach was conducted to isolate areas of
greatest bank instability and sediment erosion.
¦ A series of photographs were assembled to further document the degree of
impairment along the reach. These are presented in Appendix A.
The pattern, dimensions, and profile characteristics of channels on the property were
surveyed and the planform data are shown in Existing Conditions Sheets IA, 113, and IC.
Longitudinal profile data are shown in Existing Conditions Sheets 1D and IE. The survey
data does not yield morphologic characteristics which can be used for natural channel
design purposes as the unnamed tributaries are all artificially dug or modified channels.
3.3.2 Planform
The planform and morphologic characteristics for the UT to Cane Creek restoration reach
are shown in Existing Conditions Sheets IA, 113, and 1C and summarized in Table 4.
The project reaches for the entire site are composed of a series of straight ditch-like
segments broken up by low-angle bends, or small segments where the channel has
undergone aggressive bank erosion and unstable meander development since
channelization. The channelized planform does not allow for assessment of meander
parameters such as meander wavelength, sinuosity, meander belt width, or meander
radius of curvature. Sinuosities on the unnamed tributaries on the property tract are
essentially 1.0 with a few areas of minor migration off of the channelized alignments.
3.3.3 Cross Sections
All unnamed tributaries to Cane Creek are altered channels with topographic cross
sections indicative of dredge operations (see Figure 4). Asymmetric spoil or dredge
material build-up and V-shaped and asymmetric V/U-shaped cross sections are both
indicative of track hoe or backhoe operations that have cut and maintained these channels
over time.
Final Restoration Plan 3-2 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
Cross sections were derived from the survey data for all tributaries and ditches on the
property tract. The bankfull dimensions for the two unnamed tributaries were used to
determine the existing cross section areas for flow and to provide information to estimate
existing bankfull parameters and bankfull discharges using Manning's Equation (Tables
2a, 2b, and 4). The disparities seen along the channel from one section to another, as
well as disparities seen between these values and the regime estimates, indicate that
channels are not in equilibrium, and for the most part are oversized for any reasonable
estimates of bankfull discharges and cross section areas based on either Mountain or
Piedmont regime relationships. The Tributary, for example, has dimensions
approximately ten times the regime estimates, and currently operates essentially as a
storm drain (Rosgen G-type) for the commercial and industrial properties on the south
side of Rockwell Drive. Overall, from a dimensional perspective, the channels are not in
their proper hydrologic relationship to the existing floodplain, and have inconsistent
dimensions to promote sediment transport continuity or channel stability.
3.3.4 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profiles are shown in Existing Conditions Sheets 1D and IE. Longitudinal
profiles were composed using the surveyed data along the Main Stem and its Tributary.
The Main Stem Reach has an overall stream grade of only approximately 0.003 ft/ft (or
0.3%), and the Tributary has a grade of approximately 0.015 ft/ft (or 1.5%). The profiles
have an artificial stepped character, with most of the stream bed running at grades less
than 0.001 ft/ft. The longitudinal profile of the Main Stem indicates that it steps down
approximately 10 feet over a run of approximately 3,000 feet. The channel is dominated
by runs of sand and silt with infrequent debris-related riffle and pool areas. Lateral bars
shift in an unstable pattern along the reach with no indication of perennial vegetation.
Thus, the reaches have little riffle or pool habitat of any significance.
The beds of all channelized reaches were not specifically surveyed for riffle and pool
areas. However, inspection at numerous points along the existing channels revealed the
dominance of runs of sand and silt due to beaver dams. The dominance of sand and silt as
the primary bed materials, along with the artificial nature of the channels, did not justify
additional quantitative grain size research work within the reach, particularly as design
constraints could not be derived from the data.
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
Stream stability was analyzed using Rosgen Level III methodologies through an examination of
parameters such as morphologic data (discussed above), existing trees (species, size, health, and
relation to stream), and lateral stability (Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI)). Approximately
3,000 linear feet of stream was assessed. BEHI ratings were recorded after a change in stream
variables, near bank stress, or bank height. These streambank variables included: bank height
ratio (stream bank height/maximum bankfull depth), ratio of rooting depthibank height, rooting
density, percent surface area of bank protected, bank angle, number and location of various soil
composition layers in the bank, and bank material composition. (Rosgen 1999). The resulting
values for the restoration reach were initially ranked into eight levels of erodibility and these
results are presented in Appendix B.
Bank Erosion Hazard Index scores ranged from 10 to 40 (on an overall scale of 0 to 50),
indicating a low to very high potential for continued bank erosion and channel widening across
the entire project reach (Table 6). Additionally, sediment supply is high from severely eroding
Final Restoration Plan 3-3 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
banks. These areas were mostly located where the channel is constricted and outside of meander
bends. The existing channel also exhibits long straightened reaches, lack of riffle-pool sequence,
lack of pool depth and entrenchment. These factors indicate both vertical and lateral instability
through channel incision and widening throughout the project reach.
3.5 Bankfull Verification
The commonly accepted method for natural channel design is based on the ability to select the
appropriate bankfull discharge and generate the corresponding bankfull hydraulic geometry from
a stable reference reach. Observable bankfull stage indicators can include top of bank, upper
breaks in slope, back of the highest depositional feature (i.e. point bars and benches), and the
highest scour line. Because bankfull stage can be problematic to determine, especially in a
degraded system, any indicator of bankfull was noted in the restoration reach. The degraded
reach had many obstacles resulting in potentially inaccurate bankfull identification, thus the
bankfull discharges were based on the best available analysis, including Regional Curves and
Manning's Equation.
3.5.1 USGS Gage Data
When available, USGS gage data can be used to estimate the discharges based on flow
data for certain storm recurrence intervals for a particular stream. However, no USGS
gage stations are located along Cane Creek or any of its tributaries; the closest gage
station is located on the French Broad River, which is a much larger watershed system.
No USGS gage stations exist in the region for comparable waters to the unnamed
tributaries that are the focus of the proposed restoration efforts. Thus, the use of USGS
gage data for this project is not appropriate.
3.5.2 North Carolina Regime Analysis
A second method of determining the likely dominant (channel forming) discharges in a
given setting of North Carolina requires use of "regime" relationships determined by
analysis of streams that have good bankfull morphologic indicators as well as USGS gage
data. This analysis has been performed for both the North Carolina Mountains and
Piedmont physiographic provinces (Harmon et al. 1999). Both sets of relationships
appear to be relevant to the proposed restoration. While climatic factors at the project
site are clearly linked most closely to the Mountain Province; land use, geology and
topography of the site have significant parallels with the North Carolina Piedmont
Province. Thus, both sets of regime equations are useful to gain a perspective on
bankfull discharge and dimension characteristics. Harmon and others (1999) have
generated the following set of relationships:
Piedmont Rural Streams (feet and mil)
Abkf = 21.43 A,,, 0.68
Qbkf = 89.04 A,,, 0.72
Wbkf = 11.89 A,,, 0.43
Dbkf = 1.50 A,,, 0.32
Mountain Rural Streams (feet and mil)
Final Restoration Plan 3-4 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
Abkf = 21.61 A,,, 0.68
Qbkf = 100.64 A,,, 0.76
Wbkf = 19.05 A, 0.37
Dbkf = 1.1 A, 031
In these equations,
A, = the drainage basin contributing area (miz)
Abkf = cross section area of flow at the bankfull stage (ft)
Qbkf = discharge at the bankfull stage (ft)
Wbkf = width of the water surface at the bankfull stage (ft)
Dbkf = mean depth of flow at the bankfull stage (ft)
The stream drainage areas pertaining to this project are shown in Figure 3 and tabulated
in Table 2a. Both the Piedmont and Mountain province estimates for Abkf, Qbkf, Wbkf, and
Dbkf are listed in Table 2c. In addition, data for two Rosgen E-type reference reaches
(found to be comparable to the unnamed tributaries to be restored) is also listed in Table
2a for comparison purposes. The regime data indicates that bankfull discharges are
somewhat higher for the Mountain province in comparison to the Piedmont. This is
primarily a function of the steeper topography and the tendency in the Mountains for
small watersheds to be Rosgen A- to B-type streams, whereas in the Piedmont they
would more typically be C with subordinate B- and E-types. In the case of the tributaries
to Cane Creek on the restoration tract, the streams are in E-type settings, with limited
upper catchment areas of steeper topography (that could substantially shift rainfall-runoff
relationship to more mountain-like conditions). Thus, Piedmont regime results appear
more appropriate to the project site. As an example, stream gradients along the Main
Stem tributary are only 0.003 ft/ft, and thus more typical of Piedmont valley conditions.
Table 2c illustrates that our design compared to the Piedmont Regional Curves are within
11% on the Upper Reach, 6% on the Lower Reach, and 4% on the Tributary.
3.5.3 Manning's Equation-Based Estimation of Bankfull Discharge
Detailed topographic mapping has been performed on the project site with careful
attention to channel geometry. From this data a series of cross sections were prepared to
represent the range of expected design hydrologic conditions. As all channels are
modified, no natural significance can be ascribed to the top of bank. Bankfull estimates
derived from the existing survey data only represent maximum channel discharge
capacities and have little to no bearing on what a natural or equilibrium discharge would
likely be in a comparable natural channel setting. However, the estimated cross-sectional
areas, wetted perimeters, and channel slope, combined with estimates of the Manning's
roughness coefficients, provide input parameters for discharge calculation at each cross
section using the Manning's equation. The input parameters and calculated results are
presented in Tables 2a and 2b. The estimate of Manning's roughness coefficients is
subjective and brings some ambiguity into these calculations. To reflect reasonable
variation of these parameters within the studied stream reaches, two values of roughness
coefficient (0.03 and 0.04) were used to calculate a range of discharge values. The
resulting range of discharges for each stream is shown in Table 2b wherein values
determined using the regime relationships are also shown for comparison. The disparities
in the regime and Manning-based estimates underscore the artificial nature of the existing
channels at the site. They also underscore the extent to which these channels have been
Final Restoration Plan 3-5 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
basically converted to storm discharge channels with flows largely contained within the
channels and out of a natural balance with normal floodplain function.
3.6 Vegetation
The project site is predominantly agricultural land with a limited riparian buffer along the
streams. The riparian areas ranged from relatively disturbed to very disturbed. The floodplain
buffer along the stream has canopy species consisting of black walnut (duglans nigra), box elder
(Acer negundo), black willow (Salix nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentahs), river birch (Betula
nigra) and hickories (Carya spp.). Sub-canopy and shrub layers consisted of box elder, black
willow, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), viburnums (Viburnum spp.), multi-flora rose (Rosa
multijlora), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and privet (Ligustrum sinese). Herbaceous and vines species
included poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), asters (Aster spp.), cockleburs (Xanthium spp.), wingstem
(Verbesina alternifolia), golden rods (Sohdago spp.), foxtail (Setaria spp.), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), barnyard grass (Echinochloa muricata), fescue (Festuca spp.) and other
grasses.
Final Restoration Plan 3-6 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS
The regional topography, valley slope, and cross sections surveyed along the UT to Cane Creek
restoration reach indicate that the reach occupies a relatively broad level floodplain that would in
stable equilibrium conditions be occupied by a C-type transitioning to an E-type (Rosgen 1996,
1997) stream with a bankfull stage at, or very close to, the true top of bank. Stable C/E-type
channels have been difficult to find in general due to the practice of converting level floodplain
lands to row crop agriculture in past centuries. For this project it was determined that designing a
C/E-type channel would be suitable for the site conditions with width/depth ratio between 10 and
12 and sinuosity between 1.2 and 1.5.
Two reference reaches were located for use in designing the plan for UT to Cane Creek. The first
reference reach was located southwest of Asheville, NC (Buncombe County) and will be referred
to as Orton Branch. The second reference reach site is located east of Brevard, NC (Transylvania
County) and will be referred to as UT to Little River. The locations of the reference reaches are
shown in Figures 6a and 6b, and directions to the sites can be found in Section 1.1. Other
geographic data for the reference reaches are presented in Figures 7 through 10, and summarized
in Table 4 (along with the parameters for existing conditions of the degraded segments of UT to
Cane Creek). Photographs of the reference reaches are included in Appendices C and D.
4.1 Watershed Characterization
4.1.1 Orton Branch
The Orton Branch watershed and it hydrologic features are shown in Figure 7a. The
watershed is dominated by a mix of wooded and agricultural lands with a subordinate
variety of urban land classes, including transportation and low-density residential. The
Blue Ridge Parkway and NC-191 are within the Orton Branch watershed. Soils within
the watershed are shown in Figure 8a, with the reference reach itself lying within a
floodplain corridor of Iotla loam soils. Iotla loams (Coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic
Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts) consist of very deep, somewhat poorly drained, moderately
permeable soils on nearly level floodplains of the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains
(USDA 2007). The Orton Branch restoration reach lies within the Muscovite-Biotite
Gneiss geologic formation, described as locally sulfidic, interlayered and gradational with
mica schist, minor amphibolite, and horneblende gneiss (Sedimentary & Metamorphic
Rock in the Blue Ridge Belt).
4.1.2 UT to Little River
The UT to Little River watershed and its hydrologic features are shown in Figure 7b.
The watershed is dominated (over 90% forested) by wooded parkland owned by the State
as part of DuPont State Forest. The human disturbances to the watershed include trails
associated with the State Forest, power lines, and a landing strip. Soils of the watershed
are shown in Figure 8b, with the reference reach lying within a stream corridor of
Roanoke silt loam soils. Roanoke silt loams (Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic
Endoaquults) consist of very deep, poorly drained, slowly permeable soils formed from
fluvial sediments (USDA 2007). The reference reach lies within the Caesars Head
Granite Gneiss geologic formation, described as Equigranular to porphyritic, massive to
well foliated, and containing biotite and muscovite (Intrusive Rock in the Inner
Piedmont).
Final Restoration Plan 4-1 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
4.2 Channel Classification
4.2.1 Orton Branch
Based on the data summarized in Table 4, the Orton Branch reference reach is a Rosgen
Type C/E4 stream. This reach was very close to the stream type proposed for UT to Cane
creek with the appropriate width/depth ratio but lacking the sinuosity. The alluvial
floodplain setting, proximity of bankfull to current true top of bank, entrenchment ratios,
and low stream slopes support a C/E channel classification. The reach is located just
downstream from the Orton Branch crossing of NC-191 (Figure 7a). The stream is
classified by NCDWQ as a Class C stream. These waters are protected for secondary
recreation (wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water
where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner),
fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses
suitable for Class C. There are no state restrictions on watershed development or types of
discharges (NCDWQ 2007).
4.2.2 UT to Little River
Based on the data summarized in Table 4, the UT to Little River reference reach is an E4-
type stream. The alluvial floodplain setting, proximity of bankfull at top of bank,
entrenchment ratios, sinuosity, and low stream slopes support an E channel classification
for this stream. The reach is located within DuPont State Forest, approximately 400 feet
upstream of its confluence with the Little River and Bridal Veil Falls (Figure 7b). The
stream is not classified by NCDWQ; however, the Little River is classified as a Class C
stream. These waters are protected for secondary recreation (wading, boating, and other
uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an
infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner), fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life
propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. There are no
state restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges (NCDWQ 2007).
4.3 Discharge
The observations of bankfull indicators within the reference reaches are summarized in Table 4.
The estimated cross sectional areas, wetted perimeters, and channel slopes, combined with
estimated Manning's roughness coefficients, provide input parameters for discharge verification
using Manning's equation. The bankfull indicators utilized included backs of benches, scour
lines, and vegetative indicators just inside the top of bank for Orton Branch and top of bank for
UT to Little River.
4.4 Channel Morphology
The pattern, dimension and profile of the reference reaches were surveyed using standard
morphologic methodology after initial inspection of the stream stability and bankfull indicators.
The pattern of the reference stream reaches, derived using meander radius of curvature, meander
belt widths, meander wavelengths, and sinuosity, are summarized in Table 4. The dimensions of
the reference reaches were surveyed at one riffle and one pool cross-section per reach. A
longitudinal profile was collected at each reach, measuring over 300 feet at Orton Branch and
over 250 feet at the UT to Little River. Values derived from the profiles are summarized in Table
Final Restoration Plan 4-2 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment
There are four categories of observations that are used to determine the stability-based
appropriateness of a reference reach for restoration design purposes:
¦ Consistency of channel morphologic parameters with regime-based estimates of
channel dimensional parameters and discharge,
¦ Indications of recent overbank flow and levee aggradation to demonstrate that the
channel is hydrologically connected to the surrounding floodplain under current
watershed, climate, and hydrologic conditions,
¦ No significant bed or bank erosion areas, and
¦ Reasonable riffle and pool habitat present for riffle and meander bend areas,
respectively, without signs of aggradation within the channel from the formation or
migration of lateral or medial sediment bars (point bars excluded).
Photographs included in Appendices B and C and morphologic surveys shown in Table 4
demonstrate the stability of the selected reaches. Quantitative assessments of sediment
export/erosion using a BEHI approach was completed along more than 300 linear feet of each
reference reach and can be found in Table 6. The average BEHI values along the left and right
banks of the Orton Branch reach ranged from low to moderate (Table 7). The average BEHI
values along the left and right banks of the UT to Little River reach were very low to moderate
with the majority of the reach being low (Table 8). Overall the reference stream reaches have a
low hazard or risk rating for the stream banks.
4.6 Bankfull Verification
The commonly accepted method for natural channel design is based on the ability to select the
appropriate bankfull discharge and generate the corresponding bankfull hydraulic geometry.
Observable bankfull stage indicators can include top of bank, upper breaks in slope, back of the
highest depositional feature (i.e. point bars and benches), and the highest scour line. The most
commonly noted bankfull indicator for the Orton Branch and UT to Little River reference reaches
was top of bank. The field-indicated bankfull stage was then verified using the regional hydraulic
geometry relationships (Regional Curves, as discussed above in Section 3.5) (Harmon et al 1999).
The bankfull cross-sectional areas for the restoration reach were consistent with the cross-
sectional area regressed power function lines from the regional curves.
4.7 Vegetation
4.7.1 Orton Branch
The floodplain forest along Orton Branch contains species indicative of a
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest or a Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). The dominant species in the project area have canopy and
sub-canopy woody species consisting of sycamore, red maple (Acer rubrum), ironwood
(Carpinus carohniana), spice bush (Lindera benzoin), and privet. Herbaceous and vine
species consisted of poison ivy, jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), asters, smartweeds (Polygonum spp.), microstegium (Microstegium
vimineum), New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis) and wood ferns (Dryopteris
spp.).
Final Restoration Plan 4-3 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
4.7.2 UT to Little River
The riparian corridor for the UT to Little River reference reach contains species
indicative of a Swamp Forest/Bog Complex that grades into a Montane Alluvial Forest
upslope of the stream (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The floodplain forest has plant
species consisting of red maple, alders (Alnus spp.), American holly (Ilex opaca),
vibumums, rhododendrons (Rhododendron spp.), fetterbush (Leucothoe fontanesiana),
royal fern (Osmunda regahs), wood ferns, cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea),
ladyfern (Athyrium filix femina ssp. Asplenioides), rushes, false nettle, and slender spike
grass.
The wetlands along the UT to Little River were located in the floodplain. Vegetation of
the bog wetlands consists of boneset (Eupatorium perfohatum), tearthumb (Polygonum
sagittatum), smartweeds, asters, sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), sedges (Carex spp.),
arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), bur reed (Sparganium spp.), royal fern, and Virginia chain
fern (Woodwardia virginica).
Final Restoration Plan 4-4 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Currently there are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project site. The area is and has been
farmed for over 50 years. Ditches across the site have effectively drained the areas which have
shown indications of being hydric in the past, based on information from the County Soil Survey
and aerial photographs.
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
Monitoring wells were installed on site on September 9, 2007. The data collected from those
wells are included in Appendix F (AW - automated gauged wells; MW - manually gauged wells).
The information noted in the areas presumed to have been hydric in the past indicates that the
water table ranges from approximately 0.7 to 37 inches below the surface. It should be noted that
this has been a severe drought year; the rainfall for the area is approximately 0.09 inches above
average for the month of September, but is 9. 11 inches below average for the 2007 calendar year
(State Climate Office of North Carolina 2007). Also, during field investigation, ponding was
observed on the surface of the site and around the monitoring wells during and after rain events.
The data in Appendix F shows that across the site the groundwater has increased overall and,
during and after rain events, there are spikes of high levels of groundwater in shallow soils.
5.3 Soil Characterization
Soils on the project site show indications of being hydric prior to conversion. Kinkora is listed as
a hydric soil for the county, and Codorus is listed as having hydric inclusions of Toxaway and
Hatboro soils (See Figure 3). However, these soils currently do not support hydrophytic
vegetation or show signs of being saturated in the upper 12 inches. While installing the wells and
angering additional soil borings across the site, it was noted that hydric characteristics are present
at most locations immediately below the plow zone (>12 inches below the surface), except
adjacent to the existing ditches where drawdown occurs.
5.4 Plant Community Characterization
The plant community for the areas proposed for wetland restoration is currently farmed in row
crops, most recently corn. Due to the conversion to farmlands, a native plant community
characterization for the area can not be developed. In Spring 2007, some rushes were present in
portions of the field, before the drought conditions worsened and the corn crop began to flourish.
Final Restoration Plan 5-1 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
6.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS
Reference wetlands are natural wetland systems that can be used as design templates for the
proposed wetland creation practices. These sites should fall in the same ecological and
physiographic region as the project site. Topography, hydrological and soil characteristics along
with vegetative community descriptions collected from the reference wetland sites provide
essential information that can be used in the wetland design.
Two potential reference wetlands were located within a mile of the project site. These wetlands
are floodplain depressions and were classified using the jurisdictional definition detailed in the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987).
The sites met the soil, vegetative, hydrologic criteria used to identify wetlands. These criteria are
described in the sections that follow.
6.1 Hydrologic Characterization
The hydrology of the reference wetland sites is typical of those located in alluvial systems. These
floodplain depressions are hydrologically controlled by groundwater water levels, runoff from
adjacent uplands, and overbank flooding. Field hydrologic indicators consisted of drainage
patterns in wetlands, oxidized root channels, and water marks on woody vegetation. No standing
water was present during our site visit. This is most likely due to extreme drought conditions this
region has been experiencing.
6.2 Soil Characterization
To determine the extent of hydric soils at the reference sites, soil types and profiles were
researched using on-site evaluations along with Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
soil survey data for Henderson County. On-site soil samples within the reference wetlands
exhibited hydric soil field indicators, particularly a depleted matrix with a chroma of two or less
with many distinct redox concentrations. Soil textures ranged from silt clay loam to clay loam.
According to the Henderson County Soil Survey, there are three general soil types found within
the reference wetland boundaries. These include Codorus loam, Comus fine loam, and Kinkora
loam. Codorus and Kinkora series are listed on the NRCS National Hydric Soils List. A
description of each soil type was presented in Section 2.3.
6.3 Plant Community Characterization
Reference wetland plant communities were dominated by various bottomland species. General
descriptions of the wetland plant communities are below including the wetlands adjacent to the
UT to Little River Reference Reach.
Reference Wetland #1
This wetland is located southwest of the Fletcher restoration project and consisted of few tree
species, but included green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra) and box
elder (Acer negundo). Herbaceous species included jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), hop sedge
(Carex lupulina), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), soft rush
(Juncus effusus), microstegium, and slender spike grass (Chasmanthium laxum).
Final Restoration Plan 6-1 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
Reference Wetland 42
This forested wetland is located in the floodplain north of Cane Creek. Canopy and sub-canopy
species consisted of box elder, river birch (Betula nigra), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
viburnums (Viburnum spp.), and multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora). Few herbaceous and vine
species included poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and smartweeds (Polygonum spp.).
Final Restoration Plan 6-2 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
Upstream from US 25, Cane Creek is categorized as a North Carolina Class C stream that is listed
as impaired on the USEPA CWA 303(d) list for North Carolina (NCDWQ 2005). UT to Cane
Creek as well as its smaller 1St and 2nd order tributaries drain lands with significant impact to
water quality from agriculture, industrial/commercial development, and historic clay strip mining.
These unnamed jurisdictional tributaries are all channelized and represent primary targets for
restoration work within the Cane Creek Watershed. The drainage area for UT to Cane Creek and
its tributaries is approximately 1.07 square miles with the Main Stem of draining approximately
0.75 square miles to the southeast and the Tributary to the Main Stem draining approximately
0.32 square miles to the south (See Figure 5). In addition to the approximate 3,400 linear feet of
the Main Stem and Tributary, there are approximately 5,000 linear feet of agricultural drainage
ditches on the project site.
This restoration project aims to restore a ditched and degraded section of UT to Cane Creek, as
well as its Tributary, to a stable channel using natural channel restoration methodologies. This
natural channel restoration will consist of a Priority II restoration that will include a bankfull
bench to allow for flood attenuation before reconnecting to the natural floodplain. Approximately
3700 linear feet of meandering C/E-type is proposed for the UT to Cane Creek restoration plus
650 linear feet of the Tributary to the Main Stem. A Priority I restoration reconnecting the
existing channel to its natural floodplain was preferred for this restoration. However, given the
moderately high incised banks at the downstream confluence with Cane Creek and the general
low-gradient of the existing channel, this preferred alternative could not be achieved.
The goals and objectives of the UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project focus on improving local
water quality, enhancing flood attenuation and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat. This will be
accomplished by:
¦ Reestablishing stream stability and capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment load
by restoring stable channel morphology, supported with instream habitat and grade/bank
stabilization structures;
¦ Reducing non-point source sedimentation and nutrient inputs into the identified project
reaches through the elimination of accelerated bank erosion and reestablishment of native
riparian buffer;
¦ Enhancing the capacity of the stream system, by building a bankfull bench and restoring
wetlands for attenuation and water quality benefits; and
¦ Reestablishing the floodplain connectivity by creating the floodplain bench at existing
elevations.
7.1.1 Designed Channel Classification
The stream restoration concepts proposed herein have been developed following the NC
inter-regulatory guidelines for stream restoration in North Carolina (NCDWQ 2001).
These concepts consider existing conditions and causes of impairment, and are sensitive
to site constraints and future changes in the contributing drainage area. The analysis of
conditions within both the impaired and reference reaches follows standard applied
fluvial morphologic principles and practices such as those exposited by Rosgen (1994,
1996, 1997) and Newbury and Gaboury (1993). The ultimate goal of this restoration
Final Restoration Plan 7-1 February 2008
Fletcher-Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
project is to restore approximately 3,400 linear feet of a degraded section of UT to Cane
Creek to a stable channel using natural channel restoration methodologies.
7.I. La Main Stem, from eastern project boundary to Confluence with Cane Creek
The proposed upper reach of the Main Stem will extend 1,894 linear feet from the eastern
project boundary downstream to where the Tributary ties into the Main Stem. From the
Tributary tie-in extending downstream to Cane Creek, the lower portion of the Main
Stem will encompass a proposed 1,802 linear feet of restored stream.
The existing reach in this section is located among agricultural land-use has been
channelized and used primarily as an agricultural drainage ditch. Because of its historic
use, the reach contains very few natural channel morphological characteristics. The
Town of Fletcher owns the adjacent agricultural fields and has set aside the land to
construct the Main Stem south of the existing channel in the upper reach and north of the
existing channel in the lower reach. The restored stream will contain an 8:1 slope
extending from the bankfull elevation to an elevation and distance that will achieve a
floodprone width sufficient for an entrenchment ratio of 3. In some areas, mainly on the
upper reach, the 8:1 low inclined slope is able to reach and connect with the natural
floodplain. In other areas, primarily the lower reach and the bottom portion of the upper
reach, the correct floodprone width is achieved and a side slope of 3:1 is used to connect
to the natural floodplain. The design typical sections are shown in Design Sheet 2a.
The proposed C/E-type stream along the Main Stem will provide a meandering pattern
with sinuosities of 1.21 and 1.24 in the upper and lower reaches, respectively. Given the
natural low gradient of the existing stream, efforts to keep the average slope low
restricted the achievement of greater proposed sinuosity. A minimum conservation
buffer of 30 feet off the bankfull stage on each side of the stream corridor is provided.
This buffer includes both the proposed stream alignment and portions of the filled-in
existing channel. As the stream meanders within this conservation corridor, the buffer
widths to each side increase and decrease in a balanced or compensating manner to keep
the total buffer width approximately constant. The conservation buffer will be replanted
in any areas disturbed by restoration activities with a mix of appropriate species.
The proposed new alignment for UT to Cane Creek and some of the proposed restoration
implementations to be incorporated into the new channel are presented in Design Sheets
213, 2C, and 2D. In-stream structures will be used to protect banks by directing water
away from the banks. The use of cross vanes and single arm vanes will provide grade
control as well as direct maximum velocity vectors away from bank areas.
The Priority II restoration along this segment of UT to Cane Creek will result in three
primary benefits. The restoration will result in the removal of approximately 2,840 linear
feet of ditched stream and unstable banks. Next, the creation of a stable C/E-type
channel in this area will allow attenuation of higher storm flows, which will lessen stress
and potential bank erosion. Last, restoration of improved riffle and pool bed structure
within the reach should enhance aquatic habitat in the reach, and have secondary
ecological benefits for upstream and downstream areas.
The restoration of the longitudinal profile and channel dimension of upper and lower
reaches of UT to Cane Creek is shown in Design Sheets 3A-3C (longitudinal profiles)
Final Restoration Plan 7-2 February 2008
Fletcher-Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
and Design Sheet 2A (typical sections). These elements were designed utilizing the data
from the reference reaches and aimed toward restoring natural functions to the reach.
7.1. Lb Tributary, from Rockwell Road to Confluence with Main Stem
Much like the Main Stem of UT to Cane Creek, the Tributary has been historically
ditched and straightened for agricultural use. The restored Tributary will be a C/E-type
stream with appropriate channel dimensions and channel sinuosity. The proposed stream
will extend approximately 648 linear feet from the culvert under Rockwell Road to the
confluence with the Main Stem of UT to Cane Creek. It will have a sinuosity of
approximately 1.22. Also, as shown in Design Sheet 2A (typical sections), the Tributary
will contain an upward sloping bench on a low incline connecting the bankfull elevation
to the natural floodplain where possible.
The Tributary will also contain in-stream structures such as cross vanes and single arm
vanes that will provide grade control as well as protecting bank areas. Step drop
structures will be incorporated to provide an acceptable average slope while meeting
elevations set by the upstream culvert under Rockwell Road and downstream tie-in with
the Main Stem. The resulting Priority II restoration in this segment will have the same
benefits of the Main Stem in that the new channel will provide flood attenuation and
improved riffle and pool sequence to enhance habitat.
7.1. Lc Wetland Areas along UT to Cane Creek and its Tributary
Three wetland areas totaling 6.34 acres are proposed along the UT to Cane Creek Main
Stem. Two wetland areas will be approximately 5.5 acres of bottomland hardwood forest
to the south of the Main Stem Reach. This area is to help aid in floodplain detention and
restore an area that shows indications of having effectively drained wetlands. In addition,
the restoration will restore approximately 0.84 acres of bottomland forest to the north of
the downstream portion of the Main Stem. The intention of this wetland is to assist with
the flows of the ditch across the field by reducing stormwater velocities and nutrient
loading that may discharge into the stream from the previous agricultural activities.
7.1.2 Target Buffer Communities
Restoration for the UT to Cane Creek site involves planting of buffers adjacent to the
stream. Species proposed for use in the restoration were chosen to represent an Alluvial
Forest grading to a Bottomland Forest Community as defined in the Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation, by M.P. Schafale and
A.S. Weakley (1990). The buffer area adjacent to the stream reach was divided up into
three different zones (Stream Bank, Floodplain, and Bottomland Wetlands). Refer to
Section 7.7 for more detailed information on the buffer communities and planting zones.
7.2 Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis
7.2.1 Methodology
The stream's ability to transport the sediment load without aggrading or degrading is the
threshold of the stream's stability. Stability is evaluated through an evaluation of channel
competency. Competency is the channel's ability to move particles of a certain size,
expressed as units of lbs/ft2.
Final Restoration Plan 7-3 February 2008
Fletcher-Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
Shear stress is the force required to initiate the general movement of particles in a
streambed. This entrainment of particles must have the ability to move the largest
particle from the bar sample (Di) to prevent aggradation of particles. In order to move the
Di particle, the stream design must meet a critical depth and slope. The shear stress
analysis indicates whether a stream has the ability to move its bedload.
To validate this theory-based explanation, shear stress was calculated for the design riffle
cross-sections in both the upper and lower project reaches using the equation:
ti=yRs
Where: ti = shear stress (lbs/ft)
y = specific gravity of water (62.41bs/ft)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = average water slope (ft/ft)
7.2.2 Calculations and Discussion
Entrainment calculations were performed on the existing and proposed reach. The
summary can be found in Appendix G.
The required critical depths and slopes were calculated for both the existing and proposed
reaches. The existing bankfull channel mean depth was higher than the required bankfull
mean depth indicating that the channel was degrading. The existing bankfull water
surface slope was higher than the required bankfull water surface slope also indicating a
degrading channel. This result was verified through field observations.
Entrainment values were calculated for the proposed channel. Both the bankfull mean
depth and bankfull water surface slope matched the required values indicating the
proposed reach should be a stable reach and transport the required amount of sediment.
7.3 HEC-RAS Analysis
7.3.1 No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR
According to the FEMA detailed study for Henderson County (Preliminary Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Number 37009652007 - May 21, 2007, See Appendix E),
the portion of UT to Cane Creek that comprises this project is not a detailed studied
stream. The UT to Cane Creek project lies within the Cane Creek floodplain which is a
FEMA-regulated stream with determined base flood (100-year water surface) elevations
(Zone AE). The construction on UT to Cane Creek and its Tributary will not affect the
base flood elevations for Cane Creek.
A HEC-RAS model was developed to determine the effects of the proposed channel
geometry on the existing channel. The HEC-RAS Summary Table can be found in
Appendix D. The HEC-RAS results for the stream restoration project indicate an overall
reduction in water surface elevation in the 100-year storm.
Final Restoration Plan 7-4 February 2008
Fletcher-Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
A HEC-RAS model was also developed to verify the bankfull discharge as well as the
bankfull channel dimensions. When the model was compiled, the water surface elevation
rose just to the top of bank in the pool sections as well as the riffle sections. The model
consisted of cross sections cut at every top of riffle, bottom of riffle, and the center of
pool for the entire reach.
7.3.2 Hydrologic Trespass
This Priority II stream restoration and wetland restoration/creation project does not
require raising the current water surface elevation but may require elevating groundwater
for success of the wetlands. However, the project is located entirely on lands owned by
the Town of Fletcher and should not create any hydrologic trespass beyond the
boundaries of the property.
7.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices - not relevant to this restoration plan
7.5 Hydrologic Modifications
This year, 2007, has been a difficult year to assess normal groundwater elevations, as the drought
that has persisted (and worsened significantly) through the Summer and Fall has caused
groundwater levels to fall severely. The monitoring well data has shown that the clayey subsoils
on-site temporarily store rainfall and floodwaters near the surface, and allow for very slow
infiltration rates. Based on the existing soil and groundwater data, it is anticipated that normal
groundwater elevations occur within 18 to 24 inches of the ground surface. By filling portions of
the affected agricultural ditches and grading the areas to create shallow depressional wetlands, we
anticipate modifying the hydrologic conditions on-site to restore wetlands to the aforementioned
areas. The bottomland wetland south of the Main Stem would be dominated by saturated
conditions, with short periods of inundation due to overbank flooding or heavy rainfall with slow
infiltration. The bottomland wetland north of the Main Stem will likely be saturated, but this will
be somewhat dependent on the flows produced from the ditch flowing off of the agricultural field.
A small berm (approximately 1 foot higher than the proposed wetland elevation) will be created
to help store surface water within the wetlands and direct high flows to floodplain interceptors,
where the flows can safely pass into the restored stream channel.
7.6 Soil Restoration
Soils on the site currently support vegetation that is typical of the plant restoration community
and thus appears adequate to achieve restoration goals. Wetlands proposed onsite are planned for
areas in which the soils show indications of being hydric prior to conversion to farmlands and are
mapped on the soil surveys as hydric soils or soils with hydric inclusions. Grading activities will
stockpile topsoil for reuse in areas where necessary to assist with plantings, provide the proper
permeability, and if excess soil is available it will be used for backfill of the existing channel.
Where needed, the final soils will be amended to provide adequate fertility. In addition, some
select material will be used as needed inside the channel for channel plugs.
7.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Re-establishing a riparian buffer composed of native woody and herbaceous species is critical to
the success of a stream restoration design. The riparian buffer design consists of 1) acquisition of
available plant species, 2) implementation of proposed site preparation including eradicating
exotic species, and 3) planting the selected species. Restoration for the UT to Cane Creek site
Final Restoration Plan 7-5 February 2008
Fletcher-Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
involves plant selection reflecting hydrology, shade, and slope. Species used in the restoration
have been chosen to represent an Alluvial grading to a Bottomland Forest Community as defined
in the Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation, by
M.P. Schafale and A.S. Weakley, 1990. The buffer area adjacent to the stream reach was divided
up into three (3) different zones as follows:
1. Stream Bank
2. Floodplain Bench (Alluvial Forest)
3. Wetland (Bottomland Forest)
Table 9A provides an alphabetical list of the species, with columns noting the potential habitats
for each species. Table 9B provides proposed plant spacing for the three communities with
assumption of average distance between plants, in feet on center (ft o.c. - avg). Species selected
for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources. Advance
notification/coordination with local nurseries will facilitate availability of various non-
commercial elements.
7.7.1 Narrative and Plant Community Restoration
Throughout the site, the target natural community will be an Alluvial Forest on the
bankfull/floodplain bench that will grade into a Bottomland Forest as you move away
from the stream. The target communities were based off of what is known to typically
exist is this geographic location as well as what was found adjacent to Cane Creek and
the reference wetlands.
Although few opportunities exist to transplant existing stems for re-vegetation, those
suitable as transplants will be moved to new positions along the constructed stream
section. Individuals considered candidates for transplanting should not be larger than 1.5
inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) for successful transplanting.
Bare-root seedlings will be planted within the specified areas at a density of 436 stems
per acre (based on an average 10' x 10' spacing) to achieve a mature survivability of 320
trees per acre in the riparian zone (NCDWQ 2001). To provide structural diversity,
native shrubs will also be incorporated in the buffers on 4' x 4' spacing in small
groupings of 2 to 3 individuals sufficient to provide for 2,700 shrubs per acre. Plant
placement and groupings will be randomized during installation in order to develop a
more naturalized appearance in the buffer zones. Woody vegetation planting will be
conducted during dormancy. Plant placement will be further defined during the design
process.
Herbaceous vegetation within the buffer shall consist of a native grass and herb mix that
may include: bushy beard grass (Andropogon glomeratus), broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus), Carex sp. (Carex lupulina), soft rush (Juncus effusus), switchgrass (Panicum
virgatum), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), cardinal
flower (Lobelia cardinalis), boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), swamp milkweed
(Asclepias incarnate), and ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis). In addition, rye grain
(Secale cereale) or pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) will be used for temporary
stabilization, depending upon the construction season and schedule.
In the streamside zone, live stakes and/or bare root seedlings (plugs) will be used in
conjunction with the native herbaceous seed mix to provide natural stabilization.
Final Restoration Plan 7-6 February 2008
Fletcher-Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
Appropriate species identified for live staking include elderberry (Sarnbucus canadensis),
silky dogwood (Cornus arnormrn), ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius), and black willow
(Salix nigra). Live stakes or seedlings will be placed on the outside of meander bends at
a density of 2-4 stakes per square yard and in random fashion to give a natural
appearance.
The diversity of the floodplain bench will be enhanced with the addition of plugs, bare
root seedlings, or containerized plants consisting of boxelder (Acer negundo), red maple
(Acer rubrum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica), pawpaw
(Asimina triloba), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), etc. to the list of stream bank species
(See Table 9a for the full species listing). Selection of these species for these two
habitats will provide a diverse, shrub dominated community with the stability needed for
protection from erosion. By massing some of the species, such as pawpaw, spicebush,
and sweet-shrub (Calycanthus floridus) into groupings along the bench, the different
characteristics of the species can become more evident.
The Bottomland Wetland will be planted with bare root and container trees and shrubs,
reflecting a mixture of species, such as red maple, ironwood, bitternut hickory, alternate
leaf dogwood, witch hazel, sweetgum, tulip poplar, and black walnut. Shrubs, as plugs or
containerized, include pawpaw, sweet-shrub, Virginia willow (Itea virginica) and
strawberry bush (Euonymus atmricana) to provide increased diversity.
The benefits of these wetlands adjacent to the stream channel include providing added
water quality benefits by treating stormwater runoff from the agricultural fields and
subdivisions, floodwater retention, and provide more diversity of habitat for insects,
amphibians, and birds along the project reach.
7.7.2 Onsite Invasive Species
Invasive species are scattered along the project site in the narrow riparian corridor.
Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) is found throughout the project corridor and Chinese
privet (Ligustrurn sinense) is located most abundantly in the lower section of the Main
Stem reach. Although these are currently the two invasives noted along the site,
previously undetected invasive species may occur following the disturbance from
construction and the exposure of a remixed seed bank. An example of this may be
microstegium, which is often found in dense populations along riparian corridors.
7.7.3 Invasive Species Control
Invasive species eradication and management will begin during the site preparation stage
and continue through the 5-year monitoring period at a minimum. Management
procedures described below are based upon recommendations taken from the Southeast
Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Manual (2003).
Personnel performing herbicide application will have a commercial license as required by
the North Carolina Pesticide Board and all work will comply with the North Carolina
Pesticide Law of 1971 and applicable federal laws. Environmental conditions including
weather, wind, temperature and period of the growing season will be evaluated prior to
initiation of management efforts. The sequence of removal procedures will be
coordinated with planned seeding and planting tasks.
Final Restoration Plan 7-7 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
The first step in removal will consist of an application of Rodeo® or equal herbicide
(glyphosate - aquatic label) designated as suitable for extermination of trees and shrubs
in riparian and wetland areas. The herbicide will be applied at the maximum
recommended rate and in accordance with label instructions. The herbicide will be
applied by spraying on all identified invasive plants and will be conducted in such a way
as to prevent drift into adjacent areas.
Two weeks after spraying, all woody vegetation will be removed by cutting stems and
stumps to a maximum height of two inches above ground. A 25% glyphosate herbicide
solution shall subsequently be applied to completely cover the cut surface of each
individual stem or stump.
The site shall be scrutinized throughout the monitoring period to evaluate invasive
management effectiveness. If required, additional control steps will be implemented.
Final Restoration Plan 7-8 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
8.0 STREAM PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MONITORING PLAN
Post-construction monitoring will consist of collection and analysis of geomorphic stability and
riparian/streambank vegetation data to evaluate the project's restoration objectives.
Additionally, instream structures should remain secure and stable during the monitoring period.
The plant species should appear healthy within the four zones identified for revegetation (see
Section 7.7).
8.1 Streams
Four monitoring strategies are to be utilized to demonstrate the stability and restoration goals of
the stream restoration work: dimension, pattern, profile, and bed material. The monitoring survey
protocol should follow that used in the As-built Mitigation Plan. Data collected over the
monitoring period should be plotted over that of the previous year(s) for comparison.
A series of benchmarked cross sections are to be established for the monitoring of channel
dimensional stability, and these sections should extend to within 5 feet of margins of the
conservation buffer to both sides of the channel. These cross sections are to be re-surveyed at the
frequency and calendar cycle set by EEP's monitoring protocol utilizing standard stream
surveying techniques. The spacing of cross sections shall not exceed 500 feet, should include
typical meander and inflection areas, and should include at least one cross section for each reach
segment of 20 bankfull width-lengths (in this case approximately one section for every 320 feet
of Main Stem and 180 feet of Tributary). Six monitoring sections should be established for the
Main Stem above the confluence and six sections below the confluence. Three monitoring
sections should be established for the Tributary.
Stream pattern is to be assessed, based on valley type and stream type, using measurements of
sinuosity such as radius of curvature, wavelength, and belt width.
A longitudinal profile starting and ending at benchmarked station points at the upstream and
downstream ends of each of the restoration reaches is also to be resurveyed during each
monitoring event.
Finally, a Modified Wolman Pebble Count (Rosgen 1996) is to provide a quantitative
characterization of streambed material. Pebble count data can be used to interpret the movement
of materials in the stream channels. Established D50 and D84 sizes should increase in coarseness
in riffles and increase in fineness in pools. Over time, established D50 and D84 should be
compared.
It is expected that there will be some minimal changes in the cross sections, profile, and/or
substrate composition. Changes that may occur during the monitoring period will be evaluated to
determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down cutting,
deposition, and/or erosion) or if they are minor changes that represent an increase in stability
(e.g., settling, changes in vegetation, and/or decrease in width-to-depth ratio). Unstable
conditions that require remediation will indicate failure of restoration activities that need to be
addressed prior to subsequent monitoring.
In addition, a series of photo stations is to be set in the field with benchmarks and documented by
azimuths and photos acquired during each of the monitoring events. Such photographs shall
provide documentation of the stability of the channel's bed and banks at typical tie-in points, in-
stream structures, meander and riffle areas.
Final Restoration Plan 8-1 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
8.2 Stormwater Management Devices - not relevant to this restoration plan
8.3 Wetlands
Wetland monitoring will include vegetation, soils and groundwater observations. Groundwater
monitoring wells are currently in place (3 automated wells and 3 manual wells). Depending on
final wetland elevations and proposed grading activities, these wells are likely to be removed
prior to construction and replaced after construction is completed. Wetland hydrology will be
monitored to demonstrate improvements in the number of days of saturated soil conditions in the
upper 12 inches during the growing season and/or the frequency of overbank flooding. A rain
gauge will be installed if needed; however, two State Climate Center weather stations are located
within 3 miles of the project site that both provide hourly data retrieval. In addition, anaerobic
wetland soil conditions may be demonstrated by monitoring soil redox values within the wetland
restoration areas. Vegetation monitoring is detailed in Section 8.4 below.
8.4 Vegetation
Native vegetation will be planted using species determined by local knowledge and a local
reference site. Survival of vegetation within the wetlands and riparian buffers will be evaluated
using the CVS/EEP Vegetation Monitoring Protocol. We currently anticipate monitoring to
Level 1 of the Protocol. This would include survival of planted woody stems. Woody vegetation
will be monitored for five years, or for two bankfull events. Plants should be replaced per the
contract documents. Permanent sampling plots will be established at random locations within the
restoration site per the Protocol. Expected desired species will be monitored and records of
sampling locations will be maintained. Non-native, exotic, and undesirable species will be noted
during the sample collection. If EEP requests a different level of monitoring at a later date, this
will be reflected in the Mitigation Plan.
8.5 Schedule / Reporting
The monitoring and reporting schedule shall occur annually following completion of the re-
vegetation within the restoration areas. The first annual cycle should include the first full growing
season following re-vegetation. Monitoring reports are to be completed and submitted within 90
days of the end of each annual monitoring cycle. All monitoring data and reporting shall be
conducted in accordance with the most current version of the EEP document entitled Content,
Format, and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports. As-built and subsequent
monitoring reports must include all background, morphologic, sediment, and vegetative elements
outlined in the most current version of guidance documents.
Final Restoration Plan 8-2 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
9.0 REFERENCES
Dabbagh, Abdallah, E. and McDaniel, Ronald, D., 1983. Geologic Map and Mineral Resources
Summary of the Skyland Quadrangle, N.C. Geologic Survey, Raleigh, 1973.
Gregory, James D. 2004. Hydric Soils and Growing Season: Wetland Delineation Data for
North Carolina. Department of Forestry, NC State University, Raleigh, NC.
Griffith, GE., Omemik, J.M., Comstock, JA., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, DR.,
MacPherson. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina (map scale 1:1,500,000). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Corvallis, Oregon.
Harman, 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, Bozeman, Mt.
King, John M. Jr. 1980. Soil Survey of Henderson County, North Carolina. US Dept. of
Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
King, John M, John W. Turpin, and Daniel D. Bacon. 1974. Soil Survey of Transylvania
County, North Carolina. US Dept. of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service.
Lemmon, R., and Dunn, David, E., 1973. Geologic Map of the Fruitland Quadrangle, N.C.
Geologic Survey, Raleigh.
National Park Service (NPS). 2005. National Register of Historic Places Database. Available
URL: (http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrlocl.htm).
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. The Internal Technical Guide for
Stream Work in North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR). Available URL: (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/regcert.html).
NCDWQ. 2005. Draft French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NCDENR Available
URL: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/FrenchBroadRiver.htm
NCDWQ. 2006. Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List
(2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. NCDENR. Available URL:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/trndl/documents/2006IR-FINAL-OOO.pdf
NCDWQ. 2007. Surface Water Classification. Classification and Standards Unit - NCDENR.
Available URL: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html [Accessed July 15, 2007].
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. 1:500,000.
Raleigh,NC.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2007. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Database of Threatened, Rare and Endangered Species of North Carolina. Available URL:
http://www.ncnhp.org.
Newbury, R. W., and Gaboury, M. N. 1993. Stream Analysis and Fish Habitat Design, A Field
Manual, Newbury Hydraulics, Gibsons, British Columbia, Canada.
Final Restoration Plan 9-1 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site Henderson County, North Carolina
Rosgen, David L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers, Catena 22: 169-199
Rosgen, David L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO.
Rosgen, David L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers,
Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision.
Rosgen, David L. 1999. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate, Wildland
Hydrology, Inc., Pagosa Springs Colorado.
Rosgen, David L. 2006. Watershed Assesment of River Stability and Sediment Supply
(WARSSS). Wildland Hydrology, Fort Collins, CO
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, NCDEHNR, Division
of Parks and Recreation. Raleigh, N.C.
State Climate Office of North Carolina. 2007. Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of
the Southeast Database. Available URL: http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/query.php.
Accessed October 15, 2007.
Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council (SE-EPPC). 2003. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council
Invasive Plant Manual. Available URL: (http://www.invasive.org/eastern/eppc/). Accessed
March 15, 2005.
USACE. 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual. Environmental Laboratory. Technical Report Y-
87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
USDA (Soil Survey Staff). 2007. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available URL:
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html [Accessed October 35, 2007].
USDA (Soil Survey Staff). 2001. Advance Copy Buncombe County Soil Survey (Subject to
Change).
USDA. 2007. National Hydric Soils List by State. Available URL:
http://solls.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1965 [Photorevised 1991]. Skyland quadrangle, North Carolina
[map]. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Washington D.C.: USGS.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1965 [Photorevised 1990]. Standingstone Mtn. N.C.-S.C.
quadrangle, North Carolina [map]. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Washington D.C.: USGS.
Final Restoration Plan 9-2 February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE I Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Restoration
Priority
Existing
Designed
Segment / Location
Approach
Condition
Condition Comments
Reach ID
Fully restores pattern, dimension and
Main Stem From the Northeast property line to Priority II profile by excavating a new channel with
Upper Reach the confluence with the Tributary Restoration 11520 LF 1,894 LF an adjoining floodplain bench that grades
to the existing ground elevation in order to
partially restore flood prone conditions.
Fully restores pattern, dimension and
Main Stem From the confluence with the Priority II profile by excavating a new channel with

Lower Reach Tributary to the confluence with
Restoration 11320 LF 1,802 LF an adjoining floodplain bench that grades
Cane Creek to the existing ground elevation in order to
partially restore flood prone conditions.
Fully restores pattern, dimension and
From Rockwell Road to the Priority II profile by excavating a new channel with
Tributary confluence with the Main Stem Restoration 550 LF 648 LF an adjoining floodplain bench that grades
to the existing ground elevation in order to
partially restore flood prone conditions.
To the southeast and southwest of Restores topography, hydrology, and
Bottomland the confluence of the Main Stem
wetland habitats of a natural wetland system by
Hardwood with the Tributary; to the north of
Restoration 0 acres 6.34 acres excavating new floodplains and filling
Forest the Main Stem Lower Reach along agricultural ditches to promote an increase
the agricultural ditch in ground water elevation.
Final Restoration Plan Tables February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 2a Drainage Areas and Other Parameters

Parameter UT to Cane Creek
(Upper Main
Stem) UT to Cane Creek
(Lower Main
Stem)
Tributary
Orton Branch UT to Little
River
Drainage Area (mil) 0.75 1.1 0.32 0.54 0.51
Drainage Area (Ac) 480 704 205 345 326
Bankfull Width (ft) 11.0 20.2 16.2 13.5 9.4
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.8 2.7 2.8 1.5 1.6
Max Bankfull Depth (ft) 4.0 6.0 2.1 2.3 2.0
Width / Depth Ratio 3.9 7.5 5.8 9 5.88
Width Flood prone Area (ft) 11.0 20.2 16.2 125 200
Bankfull Area (ft) 30.4 55.1 45.4 20.6 15.2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.26 21.28
Average Slope (ft/ft) 0.0031 0.0031 0.0150 0.0046 0.0021
Sinuosity (K) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.17 1.5
Ros en Stream Type Impaired Ditch Impaired Ditch Impaired Ditch C/E4 E4
TABLE 2b Bankfull Discharges

Location Existing Top of
Bank Discharge*
(cfs) Proposed Top of
Bank (Bankfull)
Discharge (cfs)
UT to Cane Creek (Upper Main Stem) 90 65
UT to Cane Creek (Lower Main Stem) 235 90
UT to Cane Creek (Tributary) 385 25
*Existing discharge is calculated at top of bank of the existing incised channel.
Final Restoration Plan Tables February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 2c Regional Curve Comparison

Location
Design Piedmont
Regional
Curve Mountain
Regional
Curve
Upper Reach
Banlfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.5 1.4 1.0
Banlfull Width (ft) 15.0 10.5 17.1
Banlfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft 2) 21.1 17.6 17.8
Banlfull Discharge (cfs) 65.0 72.4 80.9

Lower Reach
Banlfull Mean Depth 1.7 1.5 1.1
Banlfull Width 17.0 12.4 19.7
Banlfull Cross-Sectional Area 27.1 22.9 23.1
Banlfull Discharge 90.0 95.4 108.2

Tributary
Banlfull Mean Depth 0.9 1.0 0.8
Banlfull Width 9.0 7.3 12.5
Banlfull Cross-Sectional Area 7.6 9.9 10.0
Banlfull Discharge 25.0 24.1 42.3
Final Restoration Plan Tables February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 2d Stream Power and Unit Stream Power

Reach Bankfull
Width Bankfull
Discharge Average
Slope Stream
Power Unit
Stream
Power
Lower - Existing 15 90 0.0032 17.97 1.20
Upper - Existing 10 65 0.0030 12.17 1.22
Tributary - Existing 12 25 0.0117 18.25 1.52
Lower - Proposed 17 90 0.0021 11.79 0.69
Upper - Proposed 15 65 0.0021 8.52 0.57
Tributary - Proposed 9 25 0.0039 6.08 0.68
Reference Reaches
UT to Little River 9.4 52.8 0.0021 6792 0.74
Orton Branch 13.5 64 0.0045 17.97 1.33
Final Restoration Plan Tables February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 3 Project Watershed Land Use
Land Use Acreage Percent
Pervious/Semi-Pervious Classes
Forest 140 19.9
Open Fields/Lawn/Low-Density Residential 201 28.6
Medium-Density Residential 95 13.5
Subtotal 436 62.1
Impervious Classes
Commercial/Institutional Buildings/Roads 266 37.9
Subtotal 266 37.9
Total 702 100.0
Final Restoration Plan Tables February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 4 Stream Morphologic Parameters
SITE NAME UNITS Existin UT41 Lower Existin UT #1 Upper Existin UT#2 Proposed UT41 Lower Proposed UT #1 Upper Proposed UT#2 UT to Little River Orton Branch
WATERSHED French Broad French Broad French Broad French Broad French Broad French Broad French Broad French Broad
REACH DESCRIPTION Below Culvert Crossing_ Above Culvert Crossin Trib 2 Below Culvert Crossing Above Culvert Crossing Trih 2 Trih to Little River Trih to French Broad
STREAM TYPE G4 G4 G4 CIE4 0E4 C'E4 E4 C'E4
DRAINAGE AREA (DA) Ac 704.0 480.0 204.8 704.00 480.00 204.80 326.4 345.5
BANKFULL WIDTH (Wbkf) ft 20.2 11.0 16.2 17.00 15.00 9.00 9.4 13.5
BANKFULL MEAN DEPTH (dbki) ft 2.7 2.8 2.8 1.70 1.50 0.90 1.6 1.5
LOWEST BANK HEIGHT RATIO 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2
WIDTH/DEPTH RATIO (Wbkrldbkr) 7.5 3.9 5.8 10.00 10.00 10.00 5.9 9.0
BANKFULL X-SECTION AREA (Abkt) ft2 55.1 30.4 45.4 27.13 21.13 7.51 15.2 20.6
BANKFULL MEAN VELOCITY, ft's fls 4.3 3.0 2.2 3.32 3.09 3.29 3.6 3.1
BANKFULL DISCHARGE, cfs ft3's 235.0 90.0 100.0 90.00 65.00 25.00 55.0 64.0
BANKFULL MAX DEPTH (dma,) ft 6.0 4.0 2.1 2.13 1.00 1.13 2.0 2.3
WIDTH Flood-Prone Area (Wf,) ft 20.2 11.0 16.2 51.00 45.00 27.00 200 125
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO (ER) 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.00 3.00 3.00 21.3 9.3
MEANDER LENGTH (Lm) ft - - - 63- 229 56- 202 34- 121 36- 43 62- 192
RATIO OF Lm TO Wbkt 37- 13.5 3.7- 13.5 3.7- 13.5 3.7 - 4.6 4.13- 13.5
RADIUS OF CURVATURE ft 34- 51 20- 60 13- 27 9.0- 19.0 10.0 - 54.0
RATIO OF RcTO Wbkt 2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0 1.0-2.0 0.7-4.0
BELTWIDTH ft 34-92 30-01 10-49 19-51 0-0
MEANDER WIDTH RATIO 2.0-5.4 2.0-5.4 2.0-5.4 2.0-5.4 0.0-0.0
SINUOSITY (K) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.24 1.10 1.22 1.50 1.17
VALLEY SLOPE fl/ft 0.0031 0.0031 0.0150 0.0033 0.0030 0.0134 0.0031 0.0054
AVERAGE SLOPE (S) fl/ft 0.0031 0.0031 0.0150 0.0021 0.0021 0.0090 0.0021 0.0046
RIFFLE SLOPE fl/ft 0.0270 0.0348 0.0234 0.0080 0.0092 0.0150 0.0110 0.0150
POOL SLOPE ft/ft 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0040 0.0075
RATIO OF POOL SLOPE TO
AVERAGE SLOPE
ft/ft
0.4
0.6
1.3
1.66
1.65
1.56
1.9
1.6
MAX POOL DEPTH ft 6.10 5.83 5.00 3.32 2.93 1.76 3.12 2.90
RATIO OF POOL DEPTH TO
AVERAGE BANKFULL DEPTH
2.26
2.08
1.79
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.93
POOL WIDTH ft 26.70 20.00 20.00 23.77 20.98 12.59 10.80 20.00
RATIO OF POOL WIDTH TO
BANKFULL WIDTH
1.32
1.82
1.23
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.15
1.48
POOL TO POOL SPACING 11 17- 76 16- 67 9- 40 7.0- 42.0 7.0 - 25.0
RATIO OF POOL TO POOL
SPACING TO BANKFULL WIDTH
1 0- 4.5
1.0- 4.5
1.0- 4.5
0.7- 4.5
0.5 - 1.9
Final Restoration Plan Tables February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 5 Federally Listed Species for Henderson County (5/10/07)
Scientific Name Common Name State
Status Federal
Status County
Status
Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T T(S/A) Current
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E E Current
Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster mussel EX E Historic/O
bscure
Helonias bullata Swamp pink T-SC T Current
Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia E T Current
Narthecium americanum Bog asphodel E C Historic
Platanthera integrilabia White fringeless orchid E C Historic
Sagittaria fasciculata Bunched arrowhead E E Current
Sarracenia jonesii Mountain sweet pitcher plant E-SC E Current
Sisyrinchium dichotomum White insette E E Current
State Status Codes: E - Endangered, T - Threatened, SC - Special Concern, EX - Extirpated
Federal Status Codes: E - Endangered, T - Threatened, C - Candidate,
T(S/A) - Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Final Restoration Plan February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 6 Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site
Downstream
Station Upstream
Station BEHI Rank
Left Bank Near
Stress Bank

Left Bank
Bank Left 3
Total
FT /yr BEHI Rank
Right Bank Near
Stress Bank

Right Bank
Bank Right
3 Total
FT /yr
0 35 Moderate Low 12.6 Moderate Moderate 25.2
35 48 High High 29.3 Moderate Low 4.7
48 57 Low Moderate 2.4 Moderate Low 3.2
57 78 High Moderate 25.2 Low Low 2.9
78 100 Moderate Moderate 15.8 Mod-High Low 13.2
100 122 Moderate Low 7.9 Moderate Low 7.9
122 140 High Low 11.3 High Moderate 18.9
140 155 Moderate High 22.8 High Low 8.1
155 174 Low-Moderate Low 3.1 Low-Moderate High 14.3
174 207 Low-Moderate Low 7.3 Moderate Moderate 23.8
207 300 Low Low 12.6 Low Low 12.6
300 324 Low-Moderate High 24.0 Low Low 3.3
324 350 Moderate Low 8.2 Moderate Low 9.4
350 367 Low-Moderate Low 2.8 Moderate Moderate 12.2
367 427 Moderate Moderate 32.4 Mod-High Low 36.0
427 452 Moderate Moderate 13.5 Moderate Low 6.8
452 486 Low-Moderate Low 7.5 Low Low 4.6
486 508 Low Low 3.0 Low Low 3.0
508 527 Low Low 2.6 Low High 10.6
527 556 Moderate Low 10.4 Moderate High 44.1
556 575 High High 47.5 Low-Moderate Low 5.2
575 600 Low Moderate 7.7 Low Low 3.8
600 619 Moderate Low 6.8 Low High 10.6
619 651 Moderate Moderate 28.8 Moderate Low 11.5
651 673 Moderate Low 7.9 Moderate Moderate 15.8
673 700 Mod-High High 43.2 Moderate Low 7.3
700 738 Low-Moderate Low 10.5 High High 95.0
738 756 Moderate High 34.2 Low Low 2.4
756 786 Low Moderate 4.1 Low Low 1.8
786 788 Low Low 3.4 Low Low 2.7
788 830 Moderate Low 20.8 High High 84.0
830 853 Low Low 4.3 Moderate Moderate 20.7
853 867 Moderate Low 5.0 Low-Moderate Moderate 5.6
867 879 High High 24.0 Low Low 1.6
879 900 Moderate Low 9.5 Low High 14.7
900 926 Low Low 4.4 Low Moderate 8.8
926 941 Low Low 2.6 Low-Moderate Moderate 7.5
941 961 Low-Moderate Moderate 10.0 Moderate Moderate 18.0
961 1025 Low-Moderate Low 17.6 Low-Moderate Low 15.8
1025 1048 Low Low 3.1 Low Low 3.1
1048 1076 Low-Moderate Moderate 14.0 Low Low 3.8
1076 1114 Low-Moderate Moderate 19.0 Low-Moderate Low 10.5
1114 1140 Low Low 4.4 Low-Moderate High 39.0
1140 1167 Moderate Low 12.2 Moderate Low 12.2
1167 1189 Low-Moderate High 27.5 Low-Moderate Low 6.1
1189 1200 Low-Moderate Moderate 5.5 Moderate Low 5.0
1200 1221 Low Low 3.6 Moderate High 31.9
1221 1253 Moderate High 60.8 Low-Moderate Low 7.0
1253 1274 Low Low 3.6 Moderate Moderate 15.1
1274 1310 Low-Moderate Moderate 18.0 Low-Moderate Low 9.9
1310 1348 Low-Moderate Low 10.5 Low-Moderate Low 10.5
1348 1375 Low-Moderate High 33.8 Low Low 4.6
1375 1392 Low-Moderate Moderate 8.5 Low Low 2.9
Final Restoration Plan February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 6 (Cont.) Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site
Downstream
Station Upstream
Station BEHI Rank
Left Bank Near
Stress Bank

Left Bank
Bank Left 3
Total
FT /yr BEHI Rank
Right Bank Near
Stress Bank

Right Bank
Bank Right
3 Total
FT /yr
1392 1421 Low Low 6.0 Moderate Low 15.8
1421 1448 High High 60.0 Low Low 4.1
1448 1467 Low-Moderate Low 5.2 Moderate High 43.3
1467 1485 Low Low 3.1 High High 45.0
1485 1500 Low-Moderate Moderate 7.5 Low Low 2.6
1500 1575 Low-Moderate Moderate 37.5 Low Low 12.8
1575 1625 Moderate High 114.0 Moderate High 114.0
1625 1639 High Very High 78.4 Low Low 2.9
1639 1651 Low Low 2.0 High High 42.0
1651 1675 Low Low 4.1 Mod-High High 76.8
1675 1695 Moderate High 45.6 Low Low 4.1
1695 1719 High High 72.0 Low Low 4.9
1719 1741 Moderate Low 11.9 Moderate High 50.2
1741 1750 Low Low 1.8 Moderate High 17.8
1750 1774 Low Moderate 9.8 Moderate Low 13.0
01774 1798 Moderate High 63.8 Moderate Low 13.0
1798 1831 Low-Moderate Low 12.7 Moderate High 75.2
1831 1848 Low Moderate 8.1 Moderate High 45.2
1848 1865 High High 59.5 Low Moderate 8.1
1865 1877 Low-Moderate Low 4.6 Low Low 2.9
1877 1900 High Very High 128.8 Low-Moderate Moderate 16.1
1900 1927 Low Moderate 12.9 Low-Moderate Low 8.9
1927 1946 Low-Moderate High 33.3 Low Low 3.9
1946 1974 Low-Moderate Low 9.2 Low Low 5.7
1974 1989 Low Moderate 6.1 Low High 12.6
1989 2017 Low Moderate 11.4 Low Low 5.7
2017 2039 Mod-High High 52.8 Low Moderate 9.0
2039 2059 High High 60.0 Low Low 4.1
2059 2088 Moderate Moderate 31.3 Low Low 5.9
2088 2130 Moderate High 111.7 Low Low 8.6
2130 2163 Moderate Low 17.8 Low Moderate 13.5
2163 2180 High Moderate 30.6 Moderate High 38.8
2180 2200 Low-Moderate Low 7.7 Low-Moderate Moderate 14.0
2200 2222 High High 88.0 High High 66.0
2222 2244 Low-Moderate Low 8.5 Moderate High 50.2
2244 2261 Low Low 3.5 Low-Moderate Moderate 10.2
2261 2279 Low Low 3.7 Very High Very High 86.4
2279 2311 Low-Moderate High 48.0 Low Low 6.5
2311 2340 Low Low 5.9 Moderate High 66.1
2340 2366 Low Low 5.3 High High 78.0
2366 2392 Low Moderate 10.6 Low Low 5.3
2392 2425 Low Low 6.7 Low-Moderate High 49.5
2425 2470 High High 101.5 High High 101.5
2470 2500 Low-Moderate Low 11.6 Low-Moderate High 60.0
2500 2523 Mod-High Low 27.6 Mod-High Moderate 46.0
2523 2539 High Low 23.0 Moderate High 42.6
2539 2572 High Low 47.5 Low-Moderate Moderate 23.1
2572 2599 High Low 38.9 High High 94.5
2599 2644 High Moderate 94.5 High High 180.0
2644 2670 Moderate Moderate 37.4 Moderate Moderate 32.8
2670 2689 Very High Very High 121.6 Low Low 4.5
2689 2714 High High 100.0 Low Moderate 11.9
2714 2751 Moderate Low 23.3 Moderate Moderate 46.6
Final Restoration Plan February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 6 (Cont.) Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site
Downstream
Station Upstream
Station BEHI Rank
Left Bank Near
Stress Bank

Left Bank
Bank Left 3
Total
FT / r BEHI Rank
Right Bank Near
Stress Bank

Right Bank
Bank Right
3 Total
FT / r
2751 2783 Low Low 7.6 Moderate High 85.1
2783 2800 High High 59.5 Low Moderate 6.9
2800 2848 Moderate High 127.7 Low Low 9.8
2848 2861 Low Low 3.1 Low-Moderate Moderate 9.1
2861 2898 Moderate High 98.4 Low Low 7.5
Left Bank Total FT /YR 3040.9 Right Bank Total FT /YR 2689.0
Left Bank Total Tons/YR 146.4 Right Bank Total Tons/YR 129.5
TOTAL TONS 275.9
FT3/FT 1.98
Final Restoration Plan February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 7 Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank
Orton Branch Reference Reach Site
Downstream
Station Upstream
Station BEHI Rank
Left Bank Near
Stress Bank

Left Bank Total
Bank Left 3/yr

FT BEHI Rank
Right Bank Near
Right Stress Bank Bank
FT Bank Right
3 Total
/yr
0 29 Low Low 2.0 Low Moderate 4.9
29 48 Low Low 1.9 Low-Moderate High 14.3
48 62 Low Moderate 2.9 Low Low 1.4
62 80 Moderate High 20.5 Low Low 1.8
80 96 Low Low 1.6 Low Moderate 3.3
96 113 Low Low 1.7 Low Moderate 3.5
113 126 Moderate High 14.8 Low Low 1.3
126 144 Mod-High High 21.6 Deposition Deposition 0.0
144 156 Low Moderate 2.4 Moderate Moderate 5.4
156 172 Low Low 1.4 Mod-High High 19.5
172 192 Low Moderate 3.4 Low Low 2.0
192 206 Low Low 1.2 Low High 5.9
206 223 Moderate Moderate 9.2 Low Low 1.4
223 237 Moderate High 21.3 Low Low 1.4
237 253 Low-Moderate Low 2.6 Moderate High 24.3
253 275 Low Low 2.2 Low Low 2.2
275 290 Low Low 1.5 Low-Moderate High 11.3
290 300 Low-Moderate Low 1.7 Low-Moderate High 7.5
300 313 Low Low 1.3 Low Moderate 2.7
313 329 Low Low 1.6 Low-Moderate High 12.0
329 338 Low-Moderate High 6.8 Low-Moderate Low 1.5
Left Bank Total FT /YR 123.7 Right Bank Total FT /YR 127.3
Left Bank Total Tons/YR 6.0 Right Bank Total Tons/YR 6.1
TOTAL TONS 12.1
FT3/FT 0.048
Final Restoration Plan February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 8 Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank
UT to Little River Reference Reach Site
Downstream
Station Upstream
Station BEHI Rank
Left Bank Near
Stress Bank

Left Bank Total
Bank Left 3/yr

FT BEHI Rank
Right Bank Near
Right Stress Bank Bank
FT Bank Right
3 Total
/yr
0 11 Low Moderate 1.5 Low Low 0.7
11 26 Low High 4.2 Low Low 1.0
26 39 Low High 3.6 Low Low 0.9
39 74 Low Moderate 6.0 Low Low 2.4
74 96 Low Moderate 3.0 Very Low Low 0.9
96 108 Low Low 0.8 Low Moderate 1.6
108 118 Low-Moderate Low 1.1 Low High 2.8
118 131 Low Moderate 1.8 Low Low 0.9
131 143 Low Low 0.8 Low Low 0.6
143 157 Low-Moderate Moderate 2.8 Low Low 0.7
157 167 Low Low 0.3 Low High 2.8
167 186 Low Low 1.3 Low Low 1.3
186 202 Low-Moderate High 8.0 Low Low 1.1
202 218 Low Moderate 2.2 Low Low 0.8
218 231 Low Low 0.9 Low High 3.6
231 256 Very Low Low 0.8 Low Low 1.7
256 271 Low High 6.3 Very Low Low 0.6
271 290 Low High 8.0 Low Low 1.3
290 300 Low Moderate 2.0 Low Low 0.7
Left Bank Total FT3/YR 55.3 Right Bank Total FT3/YR 26.5
Left Bank Total Tons/YR 2.7 Right Bank Total Tons/YR 1.3
TOTAL TONS 3.9
FT3/FT 0.27
Final Restoration Plan February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 9a Designated Vegetative Community
= - W 1,71
E ? ? °' ?
c
? o ? un0

7
CC O O O u

Acer negundo x Boxelder Bare-root, 8'
containerized
Acer rubrum x x Red maple Bare-root, 8'
containerized
Alnus serrulata x Tag alder Bare-root, 8'
containerized
Asimina triloba x x Pawpaw Containerized 8'
Betula nigra x River birch Containerized 8'
Calycanthus floridus x Sweet-shrub Containerized 4-6'
Carpinus caroliniana x x Ironwood Bare-root, 8'
containerized
Carya cordiformis x x Bitternut hickory Bare-root, 8'
containerized
Cornus amomum x x Silky dogwood Bare-root, 3' 8'
live stake
Corpus alternifolia x Alternate leaf Bare-root, 4-6'
dogwood containerized
Euonymus americana x Strawberry bush Bare-root, 4-6'
containerized
Fraxinus pennsylvanica x x Green ash Bare-root, 8'
containerized
Hamamelis virginiana x Witch hazel Bare-root, 4-6'
containerized
Itea virginica x x Virginia willow Plug, bare-root, 4'
containerized
Juglans nigra x x Black walnut Bare-root, 10'
containerized
Lindera benzoin x Spicebush Con pl
erized, 4-6'
u
Liquidambar styrac flua x Sweetgum Bare-root, 8'
containerized
Liriodendron tulipifera x Yellow poplar Containerized 8'
Leucothoe recurva x Doghobble Bare-root, 4-6'
containerized
Physocarpus opulifolius x x Ninebark Bare-root, live 3' 8'
stake
Platanus occidentalis x Sycamore Bare-root, 8'
containerized
Rosa palustris x Swamp rose Bare-root, 4-6'
containerized
Salix nigra x x Black willow Live stake 3'
Salix sericea x Silky willow Plugs, bare-root 3'
Sambucus canadensis x x Elderberry Containerized, 3'
plug, live stake
Final Restoration Plan February 2008
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
TABLE 9b Planting Zones and Spacing
Zone Size (acres) Proposed Plant Spacing
Stream Bank 0.6 3 ft o.c. avg.
Flood lain Bench 2.7 4 ft o.c. avg.
Bottomland Hardwood (buffers and wetlands) 13.6 8 ft o.c. avg
Final Restoration Plan February 2008
Project Site Vicinity
IM, Figure 1
L'C05 x`111 ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
Restoration Site Watershed
Y? Figure 2
S?!StClII ONE COMPANY Many Solutions-
1] 7t1?3t` Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S

Legend
Project Site
Roads
Hydrography
Project Area
Proposed Wetlands
Henderson County Soil Survey
- Bradson gravelly loam
Codorus loam
x Comus fine sandy laom
Delanco loam
Evard soils
Fannin silt loam
Glee Kinkora loam
e
Gad Talladega silt loam
- Toxaway silt loam
- Water
Project bite
ow

Latitude: 35.42
Longitude: -82.51-

Rockwell
r»
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Restoration Site Soils
IM, Figure 3
+ 5y?Jjj ONE COMPANY Many Solutions-
.il ?Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
Restoration Site Watershed Land Use
Y? Figure 4
S?!StClII ONE COMPANY Many Solutions-
1] 7t1?3t` Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
` 7 rIAX Figure 5
,S StCl I I ONE COMPANY Many Solutions M
1',1T T.sI . Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
Orton Branch Reference Reach Site
Y? Figure 6a
Sl?cl I I ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
1] L Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
` NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
UT to Little River Reference Reach Site
I1 ` Figure 6b
Sl?'111 ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
1] L Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
` NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
Orton Branch Watershed
Y? Figure 7a
S?!StClII ONE COMPANY Many Solutions-
1] 7t1?3t` Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
Legend N
Reference Reach Site - Prrkp s#
Reference Reach Watershed Boundary r .
?J watq
USGS 7.5' Stand ingstone Mountian Quadrangle, NC * oir ii
1965. (photorevised 1990) 1 ' .S
_ ...ate
DO ?
.
it+ ' t S 5 !,
1.
1 '
?.:
--
r
? ?r~ dal V
,{'? 1. ".' 4 -. - . ;'•° ?. N
? rf r' - _ 1r ? - - t 1I ,
115. L l 00.'?
.. kr
NLI
?..? r
t i f 54? y-. 4J k?
{ l ?f y I
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet - T
-? UT to Little River Watershed
1 Figure 7b
5}!St`ill ONE COMPANY Many Solutions
1' 11 Il C'l l l(i Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
-111- NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
~-? Orton Branch Soils
Figure 8a
5t II] ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
1'17?II3Lt Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
Legend N
r? T A
Reference Reach Site ?,•;
Hydrology
Reference reach Watershed Boundary ! Cf
x
s
`?..
r ?.. ?.?
Aor
? e
S r
,
y f °_
n 0
W
ff??„,lli ' 9
? r Y ,4 a -
'A OF,
' ., 7.
? 99
i 46t
?a
Symbol Map Unit
tr AnD Ashe & Edneyville soils, 8-15% slopes
Ro Roanoke Silt Loam
0 250 500 1,000
Feet [?I' B,
c
UT to Little River Soils
I I - DR Figure 8b
S Stf111 ONE COMPANY Many Solutions-
J',111i11 Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
• • NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
1 MV r [ i [Jr
Legend N
t a sr h5 t
Reference Reach Site
a S
Hydrology
A NL
Reference Reach Watershed Boundary
s s 't [ k ? h r d_? ?4t? f }fl 3.Jr t E. s#vs. ? r ?,,?,..ee r r
w ti i y i w t ti15? yycE ?f at 5 F i"+;! fir h °r-, lit r l
r? } E" i ? r W {t + +t SS ?,r.? ?#s ?F t f 7 i v t ?, C ? r # • a - a? ? i ? ? kk y1
# {r
? 4 i ?? t^I 4 M1 fi # E a- 4 a 1 ?E 3k R, rG
x S'C L^ 7?`Y r!i
?,} r <`Qr ;?£y?tv ) >4•'0.4 3C?, ,. : ?4ZS'at r'., Y j f{ d t+ S `7 t t _ ` r r} `.:.
$7 iiic l D'? sa??r ?c-. ...tit +1t [ a as
?_4`? 5 r?..r#? cd 1?+ f ? ' E r'S V ".p L e ? + r! f -? . ! ? ,
P i1 r } T c a f- 'r•t ?F. C r r.. y yr t r i v { e y k,.-Fr y,.4k
. r ` { + .f .'i s y[s ti?{V "k ': ar y ? t'(r '.
i !;'4 Li} }' y r i( 3a "# ° hS• +" '¢`11
tt i y4??.1Y r £ 4,?r Y ? ek3 43 4F r r Ar ? F??C t ? +
?. 4. i`? i !K {? ? +• " ? ? Y ii ? .f ? .C, r JY h m r ?? • of ?,t? ?,? t .
f S -
+i ?a.,si }t?. r { r++y: t .?1 ? r ? ?`k 7 .x`'15 'tfs r{t d -'s ,
i' r'i +`i4 i i,'i. F'?•', .riR/4fi•' r,( n ; E F ,44 t. ,saa
`? f
?a /. s? #-5f R a d T K r : 4 1 4 ".Svr ,s . •e. ?$
r-rt
?? ,f S r4F * .,5 h.tr£ 3 ,i ! . ,"°?,.S K rw +5.4[ ,+' :,;[ Ity ?. F.--? J
?? :?;' 1i-.?r r, ' r. .. tG. {4, 4+4 ?r .•,. 9 J:jb ?, a?tv+ t?' h ^ (P '??'''.` -t' C' °; r.
*L
s' -#'{fy+ " t t t- -
1 t . s 4 a ; ,'U ',b r t .g r, rJ it ??' r h L
r d ?" qY "' r;, o- c ; H [ } r? ??yrr L <? {.a f•r lA4P.sf`r ::! 1
t
F+r s4A?f ;e [ E} ? ?s V ?•#•, .,? ti k ? j,t i? ' ,,?4r,a sir.. .tx ??' ? ? ,°?, }l. ,+f....
ff ? a.
? ? .Fr ? ? t "t•?s ab ,
?" t r+ b x y ?
. 4S 4 c ?* 4 ? r t n (a k
,s A? 4ff+ s tF t {,? + •. d ? : Y i,}'`j r!. i fTt t £1e i { }?" ']`?
.?? r r e ri _?_ r dr4 ?riz ;`5 °'• ?. ?4 4 ?r +• ?_?+`s - ,`'
+l.F - d ,/? anti<-? 'aa. l r a9 K;ee . L ?°'_. r #.
r ? A ?r i y r? ? a+ `± t3ethF ? t ar
',y;a?? tirtlxF 5 it f `?} rt iait'? _r h r
? StP ! h rr ';s ? 69 t?? 7S'.( ?. 1 ?+I ' '? ,4 j'b? t s r z 11S 5
t.
t [ 4 Yi' M1. F/ t R
'?tt4 ?+?.sr?r .y k,t RY r .. ?1. ? a ',} ?. ? ", -•. h• ?'y c???? ??.' - 's `y ? ? - f w?*
r? ?{ i',w r ?} ?. ,kr YS es t xi y ? #'?y?r1 rti ?.t.? ,"?t i.? f' .N?f'g? 5 .' ? 1 i t4' •.. r
r t [ , r s? c f ??., r!.< s ?f ??s- gar r Cif } ..fit' ar.
?Y F k c ty Y r,'b# ai ?'r
r t+ 4?1 ?".k'c`'{ p 6 Tr j ^' q - i r 1 r 'r 7}'d t
z.4 0
)A+<. r i pli hy. P `s eN F F r r " .t t y r as s 44 R4? k
t•i+ h t q? ` x ,t 4 ? ? qtr
,y r'•? P +;'? ;", ? ? y, ,.. . ?;'^.?? r !` ?.* ?4r. t ?., ? ? ? ? r,.. +?!'i?# ?? r f'S ? t i ?' ? ' ?"?.
k r a',sr h r !..ter j e"'r r p t.
r 1y y?y{. r ? rte, ,i ? 45? ?4 1 a y r • +ri #. 2?r f1??. ?? ° I ?. ??,? i JF ;?} ,-? a ;? sf r s.,e ,?i ?'i . ? ? ? ? t `c+ ., x".?' f r ??+s ?` . R ' r ? ? x? 4S' " ? ? ,?";?''
p d
t 5 ] P3 + ?. r 3y 1?¢ j fit. W}> r}?I :.??y r 'j ?t ` „?..',
? t rEr}° $ ? ?_ Jr i. f,ti `"[rr ? rs?t ?? h t;., Sr??d rs:.l ,r'"+F 1 f?,. r t •.'.9}3 ro.. ??4 w??- ._
s i. L k? I:'?l r
J' a ?'Ir +, F*??•y? .`?? rr a4 r {z+ erl
a t S r P ti i +' I y ?.,
• +
.t ? ? ??' .' i ? f : r?l f f •- 3 1 i `S i 1 ? l ? fr ' Al. 1?
# P r'` `r } '" i ,1 'd a! +! S 1 ti s +, rh{ + r r -+t a r s [?
4+ a / r -? ° r} d '? t ° Y? jii F
y yr q tit t & -- a .
s r hs r4 k fc'rs f ..r s ?iL yie 1 ? 3` g t p,??qF^' a, +;r ?7 `.s+? i .?V• J A, 1 -
1 L r x x +? i ? ? i1 r g t r h '•
«+g5+. 5 i '•,7? .i .ot',..11 i - _yt?''?? a. r tY *' ±'ty? ..
. .. . " ,.
0 500 1,000
2,000 Feet
YY#,, r
er a rs ?£ ? ? d?Y[' N
-"5 r ,..err rrf ,+r,?e,? ywF '?f r+tY S r.
.1 Orton Branch Watershed Land Use
T([)5 StE' II ONE COMPANY Many Solutions Figure 9a
?' rte` Fletcher-Meritor stream & Wetland Restoration Plan Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
UT to Little River Watershed Landuse
IR Figure 9b
?5?' O? Jlj ONE COMPANY Many Solutions—
11171?3L"t Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
?,. ' •,
A r,
Legend ` 'r' ` rN
.. t',
•t4.
dN
Reference Reach Site
Ak
Hydrology
Reference Reach Watershed Boundary
Natural Community
NC 191 Corridor k
r. 4
i Bottom land/Alluvial Forest *i no lb,
?. ?.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest ?k' ' s
E
-Ar
A
9 x ?
ILA
k
• _ Vin. ? . ? k pp.
,
Ibk? Le o _
?. 4?1 4v i r
- iA t
p
f.:..
,& ,r. a it r4w
!
a J • 3
1? I ? r
Ilk-
_ ? fir, m ? . ,? ., '• ?' r? ? ? J
c k
1
. 1
Jr,
0 100 200 400
o
Jy ? Al.
Feet*
e
40
0
IM, Orton Branch Vegative Communities
Figure 10a
LCOSyS( Ill ONE COMPANY Many Solutions
Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
UT to Little River Vegetative Communities
Y IM, Figure 10b
+ 5?'St(1111 ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
1{,11 71?3L`t. Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
Sheet 1
Existing Channel or Site Conditions

VIP.

Y? y
+ 1? 4 J, ti e 1
x* ; r,
,rN
} Town of Fletcher -
PIN 9652.45-29-2655
Deed Book 1056,Page 702
Y
)Cc0
55-36-3755
1129, Page 435
?JR HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C.27612
,ane Creek
:oration Project
Ity, North Carolina

rirv ?oocAa L7 LBJJ
Deed Book 1056,Page 702
50 0 100
SCALE = 1" = 100'
EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET 1A
G?0
G
1
1
N
N
1
1
1
1
1
11 I
1
011
1
00,
EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE 1
1
1 ???? r
EXISTING 24" NPDES OUTFALL 1
1
N
1

7TS ?_•._ ? ors
- Rockwell -
PIN 9652.24-32-1755
Deed Book 911, Page 574
- .1

111?* 1
•
' i
+;
411" CMP
k?
A?
4
1, 4
f 1+. '
`?yl
1 qy f N
HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C.27612
50 0 100
SCALE = 1" = 100'
EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET 1B
EXISTING
DRAINAGE SWALE(TYP)
- Town of Fletcher -
PIN 9652.45-29-2855
Deed Book 1056, Page 702
AGRICULTURAL DITCH
EXISTING TRIBUTARY CENTERLINE
EXISTING DIRT ROAD
F

or
0+
Ix
s
f'
PROPERTY LINE

00
0
Q
rt
o r
r
D
?I
AGRICULTURAL DITCH
"
UT to Cane Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
4,•i I 4 i R
I \... ...J
A«
CANE CREEK CENTERLINE
r?ti? ?a
%
'14 k 4.
.i I ! - f r
' - Town of Fletcher -
+ PIN 9652.45-29-2655
Deed Book 1056, Page 702 r
-1 r 1
J•'_:.' - a? i-?,?+«+. ik 1, ?,.
AGRICULTURAL DITCH
EXISTING ?`?} f r d. i
DRAINAGE SWALE (TYP) it
f A,
"? Gp
EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE , \ 4 ?G
t<<
lu ? ', ? k PROPERTY LINE
All 41V
rte` '? . ! ???, °= S
- Rockwell- EXISTING 24"NPDESOUTFALL HDR Engineering, Inc.
END UNKNOWN . of the Carolinas
PIN 9652.24-32- 1755 3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C.27612
Deed Book 911, Page 574
UT to Cane Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET 1C

P
P
Q
n
U
N
2
2
03
Od
?W
?W
N?
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
21 22
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO CANE CREEK
FLETCHER, NC
DESIGN
EXISTING LONGITUDINAL PROFILE SHEET 1D
r?
L HDR Engineering, Im.

ml of he
Nimolome-igh, ,iiw A] wmhN.C.
11fl1

o,
0
m
N

EXISTING MA IM STE M

2
065 2065
,

2
060
-
-
-
--
- 2
060
, - - -- -- -- - ,

END UT TO CANE CREEK
LOWER REACH
2
055 EXISTING GROUND STA.
81 2
055
, E
L. 2,04900 ,

--
/ \
2,050 - `-"
--L-
--
-
- 2,050
? ?
---

2
045 2
045
, ,

Mi ll
1
I E E E 1 1
1

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

I ft

EXISTING TRIBUTARY

BEGIN UT TO CANE CREEK
EXISTING TRIBUTARY
STA. 10+00.00
EL
2
060
21
.
,
.
2,065 2,065

END UT TO CANE CREEK
EXISTING TRIBUTARY
2
060 EXISTING GROUND STA
15+62
77 2
060
, .
.
EL. 2,053.40 ,
\

2
055 2
055
, ,
..
o
u
N
m
2
050
2
050
, ,

2
045 2
045
, ,
6

m UT TO CANE CREEK
FLETCHER, NC
m DESIGN
EXISTING LONGITUDINAL PROFILE SHEET lE
N

~
r LAC} HDR E Y ° ge1m.
dlhe CroIF

l",cosystem 1119 NmiwolYwe, S um 9p bleiy,Nt 11d11

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 V
n
N
3
Sheet 2
Design Channel Alignment
L
RIFFLE FLOODPLAIN WIDTH BANKFULL WIDTH BASE WIDTH D MAX SLOPE WIDTH
UPPER REACH 45' 15' 7.4' 2.1' 15'
LOWER REACH 51' 17' 8.4' 2.1' 17'
TRIB 27' 9' 4.6' 1.11 9'
FLOODPLAIN WIDTH
SLOPE WIDTH
8:1 _
g;1
EXISTING
GROUND
EXISTING
GROUND 3.-1 SLOPE WIDTH BANKFULL WIDTH
8:1
2.r - 21
BASE WIDTH
FLOODPLAIN WIDTH
EXISTING SLOPE WIDTH BANKFULL WIDTH
GROUND
g:1
9 '5--D MAX
1. J
BASE WIDTH
BANKFULL WIDTH BASE WIDTH D MAX SIDE SLOPES SLOPE WIDTH
POOL FLOODPLAIN WIDTH
UPPER REACH 45' 21' 3.3' 2.9` 1.3:1 2.5:1 12'
LOWER REACH 51' 23.8' 3.8' 3,32' 1,3:1 2,5:1 13.6`
TRIB 27' 12,6' 2.1' 1,1' 1,25:1 2,7:1 7.2`
3;1
EXISTING
GROUND
fal HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C. 27612
DESIGN SHEET 2A
Fletcher Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
D MAX
SLOPE WIDTH
R-1 _
50 0 100
SCALE = 1" = 100'

Town of Fletcher -
PIN 9652.45-29-2855
{!? Deed Book 1056, Page 702
EXISTING 24" NPDES OUTFALL
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
yY
EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE S'
Sq-' ,. , r.dd

A0W
{
BEGIN UPPER REACH
LONG: 83.663483
I
?SS?
_SS'// CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
/-SSA

q r `' - EXISTING AGRICULTURAL DITCH
TALWEG I TO BE FILLED
2E

} ''
7 XISTING
--------- ----' DRAINAGE SWALE (TYP)
I
y I
I
BANgULL
-------- ?i

Q

EXISTING AGRICULTURAL DITCH -"
TO BE FILLED

LEGEND
ROCK CROSS VANE
® CHANNELPLUG
BRUSH MATRESS
LOG CROSS VANE ---------- - WETLAND BOUNDARY
p? LOG VANE W/ WETLAND
ROOT WAD AND SILL
LOG VANE W/ ROOT WAD
,
s
^c '% '.
PROPERTY LINE
ip R ? a k
ss;,

I7:
- Sirocco -
PIN 9652.55-36-3755
Deed Book 1129, Page 435
HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C.27612
't
4-1--E
UT to Cane Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
50 0 100
SCALE = 1" = 100'
DESIGN SHEET 2B
- Town of Fletcher -
PIN 9652.45-29-2855
Deed Book 1056,Page 702
?:<1
0 Town of Fletcher
eJ?'? r PIN 9652.45-29-2855
-N -A -i Deed Book 1056, Page 702
r`P CONSERVATION EASEMENT
it - -
1 ?.rsl
N1
1 I
EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE
t
EXISTING 24" NPDES OUTFALL 11 Ii
1 ,
1
PERMANENTNPDES 1
OUTFALL AERIAL CROSSING
1-24" DIP 1
N
N
LEGEND
ROCK CROSS VANE
® CHANNELPLUG
ASL BRUSH MATRESS
V LOG CROSS VANE ---------- - WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
LOG VANE WI
ROOT WAD AND SILL
LOG VANE WI ROOT WAD
Vy?F?
t?
0

4
r=
50 0 100
SCALE = 1" = 100'
UT to Cane Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
DESIGN SHEET 2C
i i
2 ?
I I
EXISTyING "
DRArNAGE SWALI(-?rP)
EXISTING AGRICULTURAL DITCH
TO BERILLED BEGIN TRIB REACH
STA.10+00.00
LAT:36.281604
LONG: 83.663809
'---------------
? I
g EXI-STING TRIBUTARY CEN TERLINE
I
1 ?
I
i
/
/
91 91
I
=? a9
a?.
i.
V?
I
d i y

PROPERTY LINE

k
?.al
IIIA
RL

?=ar
00
r u. Ufa 1 .. 'r r 'yBJ I =.4
J ° A ? g L a jl , i_y I
x;41{{y,.l
-7 A
11 ll?P ° A
A
1 a
'r. = e ". ?' 111111
f
HDR Engineering, Inc.
?.` of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C.27612
o ;0
--? ' 0
0
?? rt
O5 r
_ m
THALWEq DO
e i-.C
v91 r -' 91
I
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
N N 91 -A 91
\-$.EXISTING DIRT ROAD

BEGIN LOWER REACH
STA.10+00.00
END UPPER REACH
STA.28+93.45
END TRIB - Rockwell -
STA.16+47.65
LAT: 36.281133 PIN 9652.24-32-1755
LONG: 83.664678 D eed Book 91 I, Page 574
PERMANENT
STREAM CROSSING 2-36" CMP
2-24" CMP FLOODPLAIN CULVERTS
I
BANKFKL
I
I i
? a
I
91 91 i ,
I
EXISTING AGRICULTUF IAL'DITCH
TO BE FILLED
/
91 9+'N?
4 I . 4.
I \... ...J
A«
s CANE CREEK CENTERLINE
4F ;L
t?
BANKFULL
4rr
1
.y
y
LONG: 83.663314

EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- Rockwell -
PIN 9652.24-32-1755
Deed Book 911, Page 574
LEGEND
ROCK CROSS VANE
® CHANNELPLUG
BRUSH MATRESS
LOG CROSS VANE ---------- - WETLAND BOUNDARY
yyy??m LOG VANE W WETLAND
ROOT WAD AND SILL
LOG VANE W ROOT WAD
y E ..,

- Town of Fletcher -
PIN 9652.45-29-2655
Deed Book 1056,Page 702
r CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
/ cvJ CTI\I/_ A11.1ni 11 T1 IDAI nlTf U
PROPERTY LINE J

allI
i?// ? t-? rtrt
I
.' r I
' I
Ile
SS----S5---=
Fal HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C.27612
UT to Cane Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
DESIGN SHEET 2D

EXISTING 24" NPDES OUTFALL
END UNKNOWN
Sheet 3
Design Longitudinal Profile
P
P
Q
n
U
N
2
2
03
Od
?W
?W
N..
10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20
21 22
22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29
UT TO CANE CREEK
FLETCHER, NC
DESIGN
PROPOSED LONGITUDINAL PROFILE SHEET 3A
LM HDR Engineering, Im.
?` of he
r?
ml Nimolome-igh, ,iiw A] wmhN.C.
11fl1
P
P
Q
n
U
N
2
2
03
Od
?w
?w
N?
10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO CANE CREEK
FLETCHER, NC
DESIGN
PROPOSED LONGITUDINAL PROFILE SHEET 3B
r?
LM HDR Engineering, Im.

ml ?` of he
Nimolome-igh, ,iiw A] wmhN.C.
11fl1
m
W

TRIBU TARY

BEGIN UT TO CANE CREEK
TRIBUTARY
STA.IOSTA.10+ 00.00
A
EL. 2,060.40 .. .
2
065 EXISTING GROUND 2
065
, ,
PROPOSED BANKFULL

END UT TO CANE CREEK
TRIBUTARY
`
2,060 - - - . - STA. 1 +47.5 2,060
_ _ _
-- --_?__? EL. 2,053.11

i
T F M,
2
055 2
055
, ,
PROPOSED THALWEG

2
050 2
050
, e ,

2
045 2
045
, ,

T H T

t t t

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

P

0

i
0
3
0

i

i
3

s
0
UT TO CANE CREEK

FLETCHER, NC
o DESIGN
PROPOSED LONGITUDINAL PROFILE SHEET 3C

N
~

t
t
t r Enp'nrring,, Inc
dlhe Cerol'

Fosystem 911 N-1
Ymy S
um 99 bleNt 11d11

u
V
W
n
N
3
W
W
W
o,
O
N
Sheet 4
Designed Vegetative Communities Map by Zone
µ - -Town of Fletcher -
? PIN 9652.45-29-2855
K _ r Deed Book 1056, Page 702
EXISTING 24" NPDES OUTFALL
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE ;,..(

aww"g-
)Il

r+% 4
Ai
It'
1
d^ +
r
' t1
r ??r
a I i?11.
1 ?
e Id?1? .j. 4
1 ?1
f? t ? t
;,:arr?-' rte.-• ?

SS-
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS

' i
-
EXISTING AGRICULTURAL DITCH
? THALWEG
? TO BE FILLED
F+ / I

-' EXISTING
DRAINAGE SWALE
TYP I
I
7 --------- -- - (
)
y
BANgULL I
I

--
------

?? EXISTING AGRICULTURAL DITCH -"
TO BE FILLED

LEGEND
ZONE1
ZONE2

ZONE3
s
Nc 4.
UT to Cane Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
50 0 100
SCALE = 1" = 100'
PROPOSED PLANTING SHEET 4A

HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C.27612
- Town of Fletcher -
PIN 9652.45-29-2855
Deed Book 1056,Page 702
BEGIN UPPER REACH
LONG: 83.663483

? M1 Y W?
PROPERTY LINE = A-
- Sirocco -
PIN 9652.55-36-3755
Deed Book 1129, Page 435
t-,
\

Town
Fletcher

-N -A
-A N
96552 4529-28S
Deed Book 1056, Page 702
r`P CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Ny _ N
N1 -
1 -
EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE
EXISTING 24" NPDES OUTFALL J 11
1
N
1
PERMANENTNPDES 1
OUTFALL AERIAL CROSSING
1-24" DIP
.1
N
N
I
LEGEND
ZONE1
ZONE2
ZONE3
i
2 ?
i
EXISTyING " x
-'? DRAMAGE SWALI(-?rP) ti
// ``\ EXISTING AGRICULTURAL DITCH
TO BERILLED BEGIN TRIB REACH
STA.10+00.00µ
LAT:36.281604
LONG: 83.663809
'------------ ;
it
g EXISTING TRIBUTARY CENTERLINE '
\
V?
d i y

PROPERTY LINE

IIIA

t ?
\

--- ao
? 4 ;0
0

?? rt 0

/ THALWEq D
0

BANKFKL f
i

r
I CONSTRUCTION LIMITS I
?
11

--4 EXISTING DIRT ROAD EXISTING AGRICULTUFIALDITCH
TO BE FILLED
........
i
y? 1 I
0
y??2
??O CN
J/
sy 1
t?
0

BEGIN LOWER REACH
STA.10+00.00
END UPPER REACH
STA.28+93.45
END TRIB - Rockwell -
STA.16+47.65
LAT: 36.281133 PIN 9652.24-32-1755
LONG: 83.664678 D eed Book 91 I, Page 574
PERMANENT
STREAM CROSSING 2-36" CMP
2-24" CMP FLOODPLAIN CULVERTS

O?E
rY r4 irF ?t ! J
J" f k
Jul f,
«'s,
HDR Engineering, Inc.
?.` of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C.27612
4
r=
50 0 100
SCALE = 1" = 100'
UT to Cane Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
PROPOSED PLANTING SHEET 4B
r J ? rj
126
r; '
1 1
y
4, sY FFF
oil
ti•".
EXISTINU
DRAINAGE SWALE (TYP)
END LOWER REACH
STA.28+01.88
LAT: 36.277422
sa k ??
w BANKFULL
F LONG: 83.663314
CANE CREEK CENTERLINE
F THALWEG
9\ ram
Ih.:
EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- Rockwell -
PIN 9652.24-32-1755
Deed Book 911, Page 574

- Town of Fletcher
PIN 9652.45-29-2655
Deed Book 1056,Page 702
r CONSTRUCTION LIMITS '
I / J
EXISTING AGRICULTURAL DITCH
TO BE FILLED
J
r ?
t ?
t ?
,
ft
PROPERTY LINE
+i
-SS----SS---
EXISTING 24" NPDES OUTFALL
END UNKNOWN
UT to Cane Creek
LEGEND
ZONE1
ZONE2
ZONE 3
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
tiG
VO
_SS
?P
HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C.27612
0 0 100
mld?
SCALE = 1" = 100'
PROPOSED PLANTING SHEET 4C

'J'r,
Y? I
P 1
)l,P ?
.hti ? l
Appendix A
Restoration Site Photographs (UT to Cane Creek)
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
Appendix A - UT to Cane Creek Photographs

r

f

I.?
K IF r
_
k
r
Y ?
P :
? -t J„
[ t h l
4

* f ? zt? .
t ? r? ? ,? s
?
Photo 1 - Cane Creek adjacent to site, looking downstream
Photo 4 - Upper section of project reach, looking south;
backwater conditions due to beaver activity
with hole in the clay pipe in the foreground
Photo 5 - Depth of backwater (-4 feet) shown in Photo 4
Photo 3 - Confluence of ditch and UT at the top of the
project reach; backwater conditions due to beaver activity
Photo 6 - Upper project reach, looking downstream
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
Appendix A - UT to Cane Creek Photographs
R ?
1.!
pattern bars
Photo 7 - Beaver dam in upper project reach
Photo 10 - Lower project reach, looking upstream
Photo 8 - Former beaver dam location, after removal by
farmer
Photo 11 - Ditch entering project reach
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
Appendix A - UT to Cane Creek Photographs
Photo 13 - Failed wastewater discharge outfall pipe in
streambank, just downstream of the farm road crossing
Photo 14- Lower project reach, showing significant bank
instability and channel incision
Appendix B
Reference Site Photographs (Orton Branch)
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
Appendix B - Orton Branch Photographs

fU_t
Photo 2 - View of a riffle and adjacent bedrock, with gravel
bar just upstream

Photo 1 - Meander bend with a small debris jam in the
foreground
Photo 4 - Gravel bar on the inside of a meander bend
Photo 3 - Riffle-pool sequence
Photo 5 - Riffles and pools, looking upstream near the top of
the reach
Fletcher Meritor Site
Henderson County, North Carolina
a-

downstream
Appendix B - Orton Branch Photographs
-,±iMM40 ®®

Photo 6 - Riffle-pool sequence with a natural log blow-down
Photo 8 - Looking upstream near bottom of the reach
Appendix C
Reference Site Photographs (UT to Little River)
UT to Cane Creek Stream Restoration Plan
Henderson County, North Carolina
Appendix C - UT to Little River Photographs
$ 4 s'
+I,. ,;

W., I
Photo 2 -aLooking upstream from outside of a meander
bend, with bank vegetation in foreground and natural log
structure in the streambed
channel
Photo 1 - Stable meander with slightly undercut bank
habitat, looking upstream
Photo 3 - Relatively deep pool with sand-dominated
substrate
Photo 4 - Channel with typical riparian vegetation shown
UT to Cane Creek Stream Restoration Plan
Henderson County, North Carolina
Appendix C - UT to Little River Photographs
Photo 8 - Riparian wetland, dominated by herbaceous
vegetation
Photo 6 - Log habitat and grade control in-channel
Photo 9 - Straight-length section of the reach
Photo 7 - Riparian zone of reach (two farthest ponchos are
in the streambed)
Photo 10 - Bottomland hardwood riparian zone, dominated
by red maple, ironwood, and interspersed with mountain
laurel
Appendix D
HEGRAS
- Rockwell -
PIN 9652.24-32-1755
Deed Book 911, Page 574
EXISTING 24" NPDES OUTFALL
END UNKNOWN
SS----SS----
N; `" •*

- Town of Fletcher -
PIN 9652.45-29-2855
Deed Book 1056,Page 702
yy .,
EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE
BEGIN HEC-RAS MAIN
STA.10+00.00
.? ?.:., LAT: 36.277422
...? LONG: 83.663314
,
?
THALWEG
BANKFULL
. , ???/? Wit. ?? t
HDR Engineering, Inc.
•'.? of the Carolinas
/{. 3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C. 27612
I 1#t, f?
CANE CREEK fL /
50 0 100
' . v
SCALE = 1 100'
UT to Cane Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
HEC-RAS ALIGNMENT APPENDIX D1

L EXISTING AG DITCH
TO BE FILLED
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
:R

1
t EXISTING AGDITC
ut TO BE FILLED
- Rockwell-
PIN 9652.24-32-1755
Deed Book 911, Page 574
BEGIN HEC-RAS TRIB
STA.10+00.00
HEC-RAS MAIN
STA.28+01.88
LAT: 36.281133
BANKFULL
Q
0 W THALWEG
0
J
a
L
L1
W
L) b
W
0 1
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
40

EXISTING TRIB CL
F PROPERTY LINE
.r
-1 -o

END HEC-RAS TRIB
LONG: 83.663809
EXISTING AG DITCH
TO BE FILLED
- Town of Fletcher -
PIN 9652.45-29-2855
Deed Book 1056,Page 702
li?
ky?
I tia+?
?d
I
N
1
?t N
r 1 EXISTING 24" NPDES OUTFALL
1
EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE
1
N
l
1
1
I r? - 1

PqG
50 0 100
SCALE = 1" = 100'
fal HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C. 27612
UT to Cane Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
HEC-RAS ALIGNMENT APPENDIX D2
i,
i
- Sirocco -
PIN 9652.55-36-3755
Deed Book 1 129, Page 435 '
d!

i -- Town of Fletcher -
PIN 9652.45-29-2855
Deed Book 1056,Page 702
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
EXISTING AG DITCH
TO BE FILLED

SS-„
' , END HEC-RAS MAIN
?r STA.46+95.33
LAT:36.285325
LONG: 83.663483
x
-' ? Y,?, bye .-,
a' r$
i - +
II
24" NPDES OUTFALL
- Town of Fletcher -
PIN 9652.45-29-2855
Deed Book 1056,Page 7Q

EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINE

- 50 0 100
• imi= SCALE = 1 100'
I -M
1
ku.i HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive, Suite 207 Raleigh, N.C. 27612
UT to Cane Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Henderson County, North Carolina
HEC-RAS ALIGNMENT APPENDIX D3

dr
A
Ri#
?i4 y
._ry l
Fletcher-Meritor Site Appendix D Henderson County, North Carolina
HEC-RAS
River Sta Profile Plan Q Total W.S. Elev River Sta Profile Plan Q Total W.S. Elev
3950 Bankfull proposed 65 2060.02
3950 Bankfull existing 65 2061.71
3950 2X Bankfull proposed 130 2060.72
3950 2X Bankfull existing 130 2061.98
3950 3X Bankfull proposed 195 2061.23
3950 3X Bankfull existing 195 2062.13
3950 10-yr proposed 276 2061.5
3950 10-yr existing 276 2062.29
3950 50-yr proposed 501 2061.97
3950 50-yr existing 501 2062.6
3950 100-yr proposed 622 2062.21
3950 100-yr existing 622 2062.75

3750 Bankfull proposed 65 2059.37
3750 Bankfull existing 65 2061.41
3750 2X Bankfull proposed 130 2060.07
3750 2X Bankfull existing 130 2061.83
3750 3X Bankfull proposed 195 2060.57
3750 3X Bankfull existing 195 2061.75
3750 10-yr proposed 276 2061.04
3750 10-yr existing 276 2061.82
3750 50-yr proposed 501 2061.74
3750 50-yr existing 501 2062.06
3750 100-yr proposed 622 2062.03
3750 100-yr existing 622 2062.07

3500 Bankfull proposed 65 2058.79
3500 Bankfull existing 65 2060.2
3500 2X Bankfull proposed 130 2059.43
3500 2X Bankfull existing 130 2060.62
3500 3X Bankfull proposed 195 2059.89
3500 3X Bankfull existing 195 2060.93
3500 10-yr proposed 276 2060.36
3500 10-yr existing 276 2060.78
3500 50-yr proposed 501 2060.69
3500 50-yr existing 501 2060.93
3500 100-yr proposed 622 2060.67
3500 100-yr existing 622 2061.06

3250 Bankfull proposed 65 2058.48
3250 Bankfull existing 65 2059.26
3250 2X Bankfull proposed 130 2058.97
3250 2X Bankfull existing 130 2059.95
3250 3X Bankfull proposed 195 2059.34
3250 3X Bankfull existing 195 2060.23
3250 10-yr proposed 276 2059.73
3250 10-yr existing 276 2060.55
3250 50-yr proposed 501 2060.34
3250 50-yr existing 501 2060.66
3250 100-yr proposed 622 2060.51
3250 100-yr existing 622 2060.72
3000 Bankfull proposed 65 2058.38
3000 Bankfull existing 65 2059.08
3000 2X Bankfull proposed 130 2058.73
3000 2X Bankfull existing 130 2059.5
3000 3X Bankfull proposed 195 2058.94
3000 3X Bankfull existing 195 2059.63
3000 10-yr proposed 276 2059.17
3000 10-yr existing 276 2059.7
3000 50-yr proposed 501 2059.81
3000 50-yr existing 501 2060.59
3000 100-yr proposed 622 2059.87
3000 100-yr existing 622 2060.29

2750 Bankfull proposed 65 2058.37
2750 Bankfull existing 65 2058.96
2750 2X Bankfull proposed 130 2058.7
2750 2X Bankfull existing 130 2059.43
2750 3X Bankfull proposed 195 2058.88
2750 3X Bankfull existing 195 2059.57
2750 10-yr proposed 276 2059.04
2750 10-yr existing 276 2059.67
2750 50-yr proposed 501 2059.45
2750 50-yr existing 501 2060.55
2750 100-yr proposed 622 2059.69
2750 100-yr existing 622 2060.05

2515 Bankfull proposed 65 2058.36
2515 Bankfull existing 65 2058.77
2515 2X Bankfull proposed 130 2058.67
2515 2X Bankfull existing 130 2059.37
2515 3X Bankfull proposed 195 2058.83
2515 3X Bankfull existing 195 2059.48
2515 10-yr proposed 276 2058.96
2515 10-yr existing 276 2059.55
2515 50-yr proposed 501 2059.34
2515 50-yr existing 501 2060.52
2515 100-yr proposed 622 2059.53
2515 100-yr existing 622 2059.86

2450 Bankfull proposed 90 2058.35
2450 Bankfull existing 90 2058.73
2450 2X Bankfull proposed 180 2058.65
2450 2X Bankfull existing 180 2059.35
2450 3X Bankfull proposed 270 2058.79
2450 3X Bankfull existing 270 2059.45
2450 10-yr proposed 356 2058.9
2450 10-yr existing 356 2059.51
2450 50-yr proposed 640 2059.13
2450 50-yr existing 640 2060.51
2450 100-yr proposed 791 2059.22
2450 100-yr existing 791 2059.74
Fletcher-Meritor Site Appendix D Henderson County, North Carolina
HEC-RAS
River Sta Profile Plan Q Total W.S. Elev River Sta Profile Plan Q Total W.S. Elev
2370 Bankfull proposed 90 2058.35
2370 Bankfull existing 90 2058.71
2370 2X Bankfull proposed 180 2058.64
2370 2X Bankfull existing 180 2059.23
2370 3X Bankfull proposed 270 2058.78
2370 3X Bankfull existing 270 2059.17
2370 10-yr proposed 356 2058.88
2370 10-yr existing 356 2058.97
2370 50-yr proposed 640 2059.09
2370 50-yr existing 640 2058.9
2370 100-yr proposed 791 2059.18
2370 100-yr existing 791 2059.62

2335 Culvert

2320 Bankfull proposed 90 2054.47
2320 Bankfull existing 90 2055.76
2320 2X Bankfull proposed 180 2055.27
2320 2X Bankfull existing 180 2057.12
2320 3X Bankfull proposed 270 2055.84
2320 3X Bankfull existing 270 2058.12
2320 10-yr proposed 356 2056.28
2320 10-yr existing 356 2058.94
2320 50-yr proposed 640 2057.38
2320 50-yr existing 640 2059.39
2320 100-yr proposed 791 2057.85
2320 100-yr existing 791 2059.63

2250 Bankfull proposed 90 2054.28
2250 Bankfull existing 90 2055.4
2250 2X Bankfull proposed 180 2055.07
2250 2X Bankfull existing 180 2056.65
2250 3X Bankfull proposed 270 2055.66
2250 3X Bankfull existing 270 2057.58
2250 10-yr proposed 356 2056.1
2250 10-yr existing 356 2058.43
2250 50-yr proposed 640 2057.2
2250 50-yr existing 640 2059.32
2250 100-yr proposed 791 2057.67
2250 100-yr existing 791 2059.59

2000 Bankfull proposed 90 2053.6
2000 Bankfull existing 90 2054.5
2000 2X Bankfull proposed 180 2054.4
2000 2X Bankfull existing 180 2055.63
2000 3X Bankfull proposed 270 2054.98
2000 3X Bankfull existing 270 2056.49
2000 10-yr proposed 356 2055.42
2000 10-yr existing 356 2057.17
2000 50-yr proposed 640 2056.48
2000 50-yr existing 640 2058.89
2000 100-yr proposed 791 2056.94
2000 100-yr existing 791 2059.34
1750 Bankfull proposed 90 2052.83
1750 Bankfull existing 90 2053.34
1750 2X Bankfull proposed 180 2053.62
1750 2X Bankfull existing 180 2054.41
1750 3X Bankfull proposed 270 2054.18
1750 3X Bankfull existing 270 2055.24
1750 10-yr proposed 356 2054.62
1750 10-yr existing 356 2055.9
1750 50-yr proposed 640 2055.68
1750 50-yr existing 640 2057.47
1750 100-yr proposed 791 2056.12
1750 100-yr existing 791 2057.69

1500 Bankfull proposed 90 2052.17
1500 Bankfull existing 90 2052.54
1500 2X Bankfull proposed 180 2052.97
1500 2X Bankfull existing 180 2053.57
1500 3X Bankfull proposed 270 2053.54
1500 3X Bankfull existing 270 2054.37
1500 10-yr proposed 356 2053.97
1500 10-yr existing 356 2055.01
1500 50-yr proposed 640 2055.02
1500 50-yr existing 640 2056.75
1500 100-yr proposed 791 2055.46
1500 100-yr existing 791 2057.61

1250 Bankfull proposed 90 2051.45
1250 Bankfull existing 90 2051.9
1250 2X Bankfull proposed 180 2052.22
1250 2X Bankfull existing 180 2052.87
1250 3X Bankfull proposed 270 2052.76
1250 3X Bankfull existing 270 2053.64
1250 10-yr proposed 356 2053.18
1250 10-yr existing 356 2054.28
1250 50-yr proposed 640 2054.26
1250 50-yr existing 640 2055.99
1250 100-yr proposed 791 2054.72
1250 100-yr existing 791 2056.71

1100 Bankfull proposed 90 2050.91
1100 Bankfull existing 90 2051.46
1100 2X Bankfull proposed 180 2051.67
1100 2X Bankfull existing 180 2052.42
1100 3X Bankfull proposed 270 2052.21
1100 3X Bankfull existing 270 2053.19
1100 10-yr proposed 356 2052.63
1100 10-yr existing 356 2053.83
1100 50-yr proposed 640 2053.66
1100 50-yr existing 640 2055.54
1100 100-yr proposed 791 2054.11
1100 100-yr existing 791 2056.26
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FIRM PANEL LOCATOR DIAGRAM
950 000 FEET a2°31'0" s2°30'30" a2°3'30" 362oooM 363oooM JOINS PANEL 9653 957 500 FEET LEG E N D 82°30'0" 364o°oM 960000 FEET SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO
~ ~ 630 000 FEET ~ ~\MCDOWELL OAK CT PINE NEEDLE DR ~.J..
ZONE X j 2088 209 SOUTHWOOD CT BRICKS ZONE X • • • ~ - 630 000 FEET INUNDATION BY THE 1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD BRICKHOUSE ST . , OLD CANE • • 2~j6 , The 1 °k annual chance flood (100-year flood), also known as the base flood, is the Flood
024 OFD NEW BERN DR 29 7 WESTFIELD RD CREEK RD • • • that has a 1 °k chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special ; ZONE X °
/ BUNCOMBE - ' 2086 G~ ZONE X 2p 90 ~ ~ ! 1 ~`PLAR CT Q~~~ 89 O U 21 / t OAK LEAF ~ W 0 Flood Hazard Area is the area subject to flooding by the 1 k annual chance Flood. Areas 2123 177 ~q • ~ ° of Special Flood Hazard include Zones A, AE, AH, A0, AR, A99, V, and VE. The Base
Q UO ti / 2083 °23 DR 0 045 X • • R / Flood Elevation is the water-surface elevation of the 1 °k annual chance flood.
HAYW00 ~ ~ ° ~ / N GARDEN CT p U SPRINGFI k 2082 j FOOTBRIDGE 2~8, H ELD OT OU HAWK oF'0o 167 ~ 2 ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined. sp r ZONE X ~"4~"4"~^ ~^`^~~S ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined.
.ti ~ i, ! ~ UTHERFORD J 2~8 o S~ SNESTDR ZONE X ° ~ 6
~ .2080 a4o 2~ Kimsey Creek JOHNSTONST ~ ZONE AE JoHNSroN sT ~ o~ ~ • / ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood
i ~ ~ ZONE X \GQP ~ • ^ Elevations determined. 1ss ' • ' ° ZONE AE ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain);
! / y " 2079 Hi nsBranch ~O ~ 045 WGLENSPRINGS CT GLENSp r ~ ~ SSA ~ ~2p O RryG \y~`~ , average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities
~ • ots 2078 ti Q SDR y°a ~ ~ J~ HOWARD ~
~ / 0 U g ~ HEN ER ON _ 20j~ ZONE X ~ ~ gyp, W E GLENSPRINGS CT 2 GAP RD HowARDi> QP~~ , ~ ~ ~ • ~'`2~~3 , , , , ; also determined. cAPRD 't ZONE AR Special Flood Hazard Area formerly protected from the 1% annual 145 ^
~ ~ Q ti o 2Ojs gyp, ~ ~ ~ WOODBERRYCT U 2 Q chance flood by a flood control system that was subsequently
POLK FLOODING ~ r'o rn Q ~ ~ ~ t3o e / decertified. Zone AR indicates that the former flood control system is 130 ~ being restored to provide protection from the 1% annual chance or
l 1 EFFECTS ~s w ~ m ~ e ~ Q- ~e greater flood.
i FROM HIGGINS h z ZONE X a a; HenderSOnCOUnty ZONEA99 Area to be protected from 1% annual chance flood by a Federal
TRANSYLVANIA BRANCH = 2 ZONE X a3z o3s 2073 ~ `'e ` U1llnCOrpOrated Areas flood protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations
wOpDHILL DR 25 370125 determined. 25 ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations
( ONE AE o 0 ! ~ 35°25'30" ~ ~ ~'~ti' (ELZO7t~ KIMSEYCREEK ~ ~ determined. •
1 ~ / ~ FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
.i l ~ ~ Hrggins Branch ~ ~,PS~ z ~ m Z ~ } , , } ,,./...p.
r.1't 2062 0~ ~ 5 00 ~ m a tub . . y ~ ~ ~ The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be 35°25'3D° kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without
ZONE X ~~t ° 121 CANE CREEK s substantial increases in flood heights.
a o z,,~~ a 1 ZONE AE ~ THE CARRIAGE RD / CANE CREEK ~ OTHER FLOOD AREAS
~ `'o Town of Fletcher t°2 ' '
~ 370568 • ~ ~ ' ' ZONEX Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood • ~ ''1 ~ •
000 M - _ s s . i DATUM INFORMATION 392t • ~ , 627 500 FEET with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than / ~ • ~ ~ TOW110f Fletcher / ~ • ' 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance
o~ ozz ~ , o , . ~ FB0483 ~ . - i ~ 7 FB0483 • • • ` ZONE"X ' flood.
The projection used in the preparation of this map was the North Carolina State Kims Creek °s3 N39 RESETI N39 RESET • a ~ 370568 ZONE X~ 3921 o°oM OTHER AREAS
Plane (FIPSZONE 3200). The horizontal datum was the North American Datum ~ R of 1983, GRS80 ellipsoid. Differences in datum, ellipsoid, projection, or Universal THE cARRIAGE RD ~
Transverse Mercator zones used in the production of FIRMS for adjacent a _ • . ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2°k annual chance floodplain. • • , • ~ ~ ~ ~ ZONED Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
'urisdictions ma result in sli ht ositional differences in ma features across ZONE X - 1 Y 9 p p
jurisdictional boundaries. These differences do not affect the accuracy of this a " . ; ' ° _ • ° • ~ • • • • • _ . ZONE X ~ • ~ COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
, FIRM. All coordinates on this map are in U.S. Survey Feet, where 1 U.S. Survey ZONE X ~ _ • - • ZONE AE Foot =1200/3937 Meters. 01 • • • • • • FB0484 N . , . . . . ~ s . ~FB0484 .s ~
oss ~ " ' ` ~ ' RV 42 RV 42 ` ' p ` ~ ' ° ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • ' ° ° " ~ ~ ~ OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs) ~ ww.....•
Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum ZONE AE ZONE X °75 o ; : ' : ; ° ; ; ' " ` • " No ~ ~ ~ ~ • " • " • R ~ a 1 • • ' CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas.
of 1988 (NAND 88). These flood elevations must be compared to structure and • • • • - • • - • • - • • • h ground elevations referenced to the same vertical datum. An average offset ' ' ' ° ` ' ' -t • _ 1% annual chance floodplain boundary
, ~3 . . fV between NAND 88 and the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) „ , , , ~ . e 0.2% annual chance floodplain boundary
has been com uteri for each North Carolina coun .This offset was then a lied ` _ ® • • • • p tY pp ~ , , , ' Floodway boundary
to the NGVD 29 flood elevations that were not revised during the creation of this . , ^ ~ ZONE AE ~ o
statewide format FIRM. The offsets for each county shown on this FIRM panel ~ ~ o N are shown in the vertical datum offset table below. Where a coun bounda and ZONE X ~ , / N ~ , N - Zane D boundary , , , , CBRS andOPAboundary
~ ry g a flooding source with unrevised NGVD 29 flood elevations are coincident, an ~ ~ , . ; ; , Q ZONE X ~ ' • / Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Zones and boundary
individual offset has been calculated and applied during the creation of this . ® , ' ZONE X ~ dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood Elevations, flood depths or flood velocities.
statewide format FIRM. See Section 6.1 of the accom an in Flood Insurance ~ ; • & ~ ~ ~ ° ° p Y 9 / ~ Study report to obtain further information on the conversion of elevations between w , • g ~q 513 Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet* e
NAND 88 and NGVD 29. To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location = ~soN (EL 987 Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; R~ BLOOMINGDALE DR ~ N ~ elevation in feet`
information for bench marks shown on this ma , lease contact the North ~ IU- • • • , p p a.~ w , ~ , ) ~s ~ 'Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 R~S~9J ~ °1z Cross section line
Carolina Geodetic Survey at the address shown below. You may also contact the , ~ Z
Information Services Branch of the National Geodetic Survey at [phone], ~ 0 - • ° ~ or visit its website at httpa/www.ngs.noaa.gov. CANE CREEK . , 0 ~ Cushion Branch ~ O~FEE~"~ Z 23 Y3 Transect line
County Average Vertical Datum Offset Table / , , ~ w a-----o G d Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American
North Carolina Geodetic Surve county Vertical Datum Offset (ft) ~ ~ , , , , , 5 I p ZONE X Y 35°25'0" ZONE X M 97°07'3D", 32°22'3D" ^h ~ Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)
Henderson -0.15 ~ J I - 121 West Jones Street ~ / uJ ° H I Rq~~ROAO ~oc`,~ ~RG1N~P,1 LEWES RD (SR 1540) ~ 4276 aooM 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks, zone 17
Raleigh, NC 27601 N [phone] ~ ~ l _ - - _ ' 0 ~ 1477500 FEET 2500-foot grid values: North Carolina State Plane coordinate
httpa/www.ncgs.state.nc.us Exam le: NAND 88 =NGVD 29 + -0.15 t N N N FB4177 J ~ p ~ O N • U system (FIPSZONE 3200, State Plane NAD 83 feet)
Z w w rn ~ CRANSTON w y0~ 35°25'0" BM5510 North Carolina Geodetic Survey bench mark (for more information X Visit httpa/www.ncgsstate.nc.us).
0 All streams listed in the Flood Hazard Data Table below were studied b a ~ BM5510 National Geodetic Survey bench mark (for mare information visit
Y ZONE N 2s o detailed methods using field survey. Other flood hazard data shown on this z X ~ • ~ ~ _ o~ ~ ® http://www.ngs.noaa.gov).
map may have been derived using either a coastal analysis or limited detailed - ~ o p Project Site o~ Ovo lONp1. BM5510 NGS-58 GPS 2-5 cm Vertical Control Marks or Contractor-Established 0~ GCSN 1NpR LONESOME PINE DR ® NCFMP Bench Marks (for more information visit
riverine analysis. More information on the flooding sources studied by these ~ ~ rn ~ oe anal ses is contained in the Flood Insurance Stud re ort. `moo N ~ RocKwELL DR (sR zoz5~ ~ ZONE X p~SNP http://www.ncgs.state.nc.us)
Y Y p 6, ~ ~e z ZONE AE ZONE AE ~ ~ 3 c'.p • M1.5 River Mile FOB G~SNtiONGR~~KpR
FB4178 W
FlootlwayWitlth(feeQ ~ ~ ti z FLOOD HAZARD DATA TABLE 392o~~~M ~ ~ U CRANSTON AZ MK SUNPARKLN ~ N
LefllRight Distance From Town Of Fletcher ~ • ~ ~ ~ 1%Annual Chance The Center of Stream to 37056$ C OCTOBER TR ~ti
Cross Stream Flood Dischar a 100- ear Encroachment Boundary .~,r.~. a Z 9 ( Y ) z Section Station (cfs) Water-Surface Elevation (Looking Downstream) or 0 ~ U ~1~R 3920 00° M
(feel NAND 88) Toial Flootlway Witlih = _ ~ pP~
~ ~ ~ OLD BRICKYARD RD (SR 1537) CANE CREEK ~ W OLD JOHNSON z
066 6,642 11,600 2,062.0 4451395 FA~'~ (SR 14g5~ J J W
075 7,459 11,600 2,062.1 4571443 Q Z
•l.e ~ ~ .i 083 8,270 11,480 2,062.4 7191131 ~ + ~u ' 92 Q 0
~ NORMANDY LN ~
093 9,313 11,480 2,062.6 9261149 ~Q- ~ ~ T:r"L'' ~i~. ~ ~
102 10197 11 480 2 062.8 1 098 / 32 ,r £ ~mf MONS UR ~ FM WARBLER DR
111 11,079 11,480 2,063.2 1,245/33 0 ~ r~/ Z
121 12053 11 480 2 064.1 1 117 / 38 { '2~~ HenderSOn 74 0 Henderson Coun y Cushion Branch
130 12,981 11,400 2,069.1 1,3541116 HenderSOn COUnty U1llnCOrpOra ~ t~A Unincorporated Areas o~
145 14,471 11,340 2,070.9 5861614 U1llnCOrpOrated r`~re$S 26 3701. 370125 ~o
ANDY DARITY DR ~ 156 15,589 11,340 2,071.9 6951755 370125 ,~°o~
167 16,741 11,340 2,072.6 1781867 COLLINS RD (SR 1364) ~ ToWn Of Fletcher
177 17,715 11,340 2,074.1 19911,111 622500 FEET ~ 370568 ~0
DARI ~ HIGGINS BRANCH o ~RD GRID NORTH
016 1,611 930 2,078.0 16 116 ~ THOMAS ST (SR 1466) X50
Fox GLEN DR MAP SCALE 1" = 500' (1:6,000) 250 0 500 1000
023 2,262 930 2,085.4 16119 35°24'30" ~ ~~P~~ ~~0 ZONE X ~ ~ FEET
024 2,437 930 2,087.9 35123 OMFS g1 Ov0 s~N ~ass1 Town of Fletcher ZONE X METERS
KIMSEY CREEK (sR ~ _ 370568 } 150 0 150 300
011 1,078 1,860 2,061.5 78184 Q =-S t n 3 ,r' ..r " 35°24'30"
W HERITAGE PARK DR i, •k~, W" 022 2,185 1,420 2,061.9 64121 v cc ° ~ BUTLER BRIDGE RD (SR 1345) ~ 1 ~ ; CALEB DR
U t.f r~~ c~~~~ ~:,y~' . ' , 027 2,705 1,420 2,064.5 16519 c~ 2 ~ °
032 3,156 1,420 2,065.3 237110 0 ~ Q DR , ~ ti , ~ PATTYS ® PANEL 9652) CHAPEL RD
r o > + • COMMERCE ~ i ± 04 ~ , - ~ - , 034 3,379 1,420 2,070.3 15115 Z z (SR 1555)
m w ~ 5, - - , f. ~ 039 3 899 1 420 2 073.1 20 / 30 w ~ FLETCHERVIEW DR (SR 1670) ~~~0
w ~ ? 040 3,977 1,420 2,073.1 17170 _ ~ HOPE OPAL LN "r~ r 1 a~ y 0
3 _ 045 4,475 1,420 2,076.3 16118 e ~ FIRM ~ HUMPHR~Y DR
O ~ / PATTYS ® FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ~ CHAPEL RD Y~
049 4,918 1,420 2,080.9 11/194 0 ~ } P (SR 1555)
r 3919aooM ? ~ p ~ 25 ~1,~ Feet above mouth ~ p F~, 0 NORTH CAROLINA
W 'i'~(, 90 Q > J o
0,~ ~O MCGRAY D > ~ Q 3919 00o M R W Z ® PANEL 9652
L DAWLEY DR 'I~, 9~ TENNIS RANCH RD ~ 4.,~ 09 DG5643 2
^ o~~~~ Aso HEN 2 J ~ Z Q ~ ~ (SEE LOCATOR DIAGRAM OR MAP INDEX FOR FIRM
~ ~ w PANEL LAYOUT)
~ FLEETWOOD AVE R ~ R"SON 0 ~ CONTAINS:
H~~'~gU
/ COMMUNITY RD COMMUNITY CID No. PANEL SUFFIX
620 000 FEET ~ 1~ 950000 FEET 362ooaM 82°31'0" 363oooM JOINS PANEL 9651 620 000 FEET FLETCHER, TOWN OF 37D568 9652 J ® HENDERSON COUNTY 370125 9652 J 82°30'0" 364°ooM 82°29'30"
952 500 FEET b2°30'30" 960 000 FEET
PRELIMINARY
nnnvl ~nn~l
IYI/"1 It L I LVV I I
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. It does not necessarily Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control structures. This map reflects more detailed and up-to-date stream channel con aam channel configurations than those shown MAP REPOSITORY
SM identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage sources of small size. The Refer to Section 4.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance Study report for on the previous FIRM for this jurisdiction. The floodplains and floodw iplains and floodways that were transferred from
community map repository should be consulted for possible updated or additional flood hazard the previous FIRM may have been adjusted to conform to y p information on the flood control structures in this jurisdiction. p y t k information. configurations. As a result, the Flood Profiles and FloodwaY Data a ~ 0 to conform to these new stream channel Refer to listing of Map Repositories on Map Index or visit http://www.ncfloodmaps.com. I Floodway Data tables in the Flood Insurance 0
Base map information and geospatial data used to develop this FIRM were obtained from various Study report (which contains authoritative hydraulic data) may reflect data) may reflect stream channel distances that
To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) and/or organizations, including the participating local community(ies), state and federal agencies, and/or differ from what is shown on this map. EFFECTIVE DATE OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PANEL 0
: CiLPARrnEP floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the Flood Profiles, Floodway other sources. The primary base for this FIRM is aerial imagery acquired by Henderson County. Data, Limited Detailed Flood Hazard Data, and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables The time period of collection for the Henderson imagery is 2001. Information and geospatial data Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview rr Notice to User: The Map Number shown below should be used for an overview map of the county showing the when placing map orders; the Community Number shown
contained within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report that accompanies this FIRM. Users should supplied by the local community(ies) that met FEMA base map specifications were considered the layout of map panels, community map repository addresses, and a addresses, and a Listing of Communities table above should be used on insurance applications for the subject
be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole-foot elevations. These BFEs are preferred source for development of the base map. See geospatial metadata for the associated containing National Flood Insurance Program dates for each comma This digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was produced through a unique intended for flood insurance rating purposes only and should not be used as the sole source of digital FIRM for additional information about base map preparation. panels on which each community is located. s for each community as well as a listing of the EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL community.
cooperative partnership between the State of North Carolina and the Federal flood elevation information. Accordingly, flood elevation data presented in the FIS report should be EFFECTIVE DATE MAP NUMBER
Emergency Agency (FEMA). The State of North Carolina has implemented a utilized in conjunction with the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management. Base map features shown on this map, such as corporate limits, are based on the most up-to- If you have questions about this map, or questions concerning tions concerning the National Flood Insurance 3700965200J
long term approach of floodplain management to decrease the costs date data available at the time of publication. Changes in the corporate limits may have Program in general, please call 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627 associated with flooding. This is demonstrated by the State's commitment to Boundaries of regulatory floodways shown on the FIRM for flooding sources studied by detailed occurred since this map was published. Map users should consult the appropriate community http://www.fema.gov. (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA website at For community map revision history prior to statewide mapping, refer to the Community Map History
map floodplain areas at the local level. As a part of this effort, the State of methods were computed at cross sections and interpolated between cross sections. The floodways official or website to verify current conditions of jurisdictional boundaries and base map features. table located in the Flood Insurance Stud report for this jurisdiction.
North Carolina has joined in a Cooperating Technical State agreement with were based on hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the National Flood This map may contain roads that were not considered in the hydraulic analysis of streams where An accompanying Flood Insurance Study report, Letter of Map Revi. etter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Ma p To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your insurance agent, the North
FEMA to produce and maintain this digital FIRM. Insurance Program. Floodway widths and other pertinent floodway data for flooding sources no new hydraulic model was created during the production of this statewide format FIRM. Amendment (LOMA) revising portions of this panel, and digital vE studied by detailed methods as well as non-encroachment widths for flooding sources studied by available. Visit the North Carolina Floodplain Mappi iel, and digital versions of this FIRM may be Carolina Division of Emergency Management or the National Flood Insurance Program at the following oodplain Mapping Program website at phone numbers or websites: • , • , ~~''~~o ti~`°
limited detailed methods are provided in the FIS report for this jurisdiction. The FIS report also http://www.ncfloodmaps.com, or contact the FEMA Map Service ( A Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616 for
www.ncfloodmaps.com provides instructions for determining a floodway using non-encroachment widths for flooding information on all related products associated with this FIRM. The FI this FIRM. The FEMA Map Service Center may NC Division of Emergency Management National Flood Insurance Program State of North Carolina
sources studied by limited detailed methods. also be reached by Fax at 1-800-358-9620 and its website at http:/lvn Nebsite at http://www.msc.fema.gov. [phone] http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/nf 1-800-638-6620 http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip Federal Emergency Management Agency

Appendix E
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms for
UT to Cane Creek, Orton Branch, and UT to Little River
4CDWQ Stream Classification Form
'rojectName: fi-?T 1 ' V'5VIr€-,4*River Basin: IW_p vt SAD County: rtt V? Evaluator: ?- t .L4e,?
)WQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:O_AP1-C4WY1. Latitude: 35& Lte0A L14 Signature:
)ate: IO 15b--r' USCxS QUAD: ?jlU( Longitude: L ocation/Directions: tWi it+ c VFPD vtt;>
PLEASE NO'I E: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best
rofessional judgement ofthe evaluator, thefeature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
'rimary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomor hold Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1 Is There A Riffle-Pool Seauence? 0 1 2
) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Is There An Active (Or Relic) T
Inn.?nlain prac t? n 61 r7
?) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
*NOTE. f Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosit -Then Score=O*)
0) Is A 2"1 Order Or Gr'eater' Channel (As Indicated y?
On Tono Man And/Or In Field) Present? _ Yesfs) No=O
3RIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
L, Hydrology Absent
) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0
'RIMARYHYDROIOGYINDICATORPOINTS: I
Moderate Strong
IL. Biology Absent Weak
'RIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS„
secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Pet Line)
Strong
0
a
3
3
Strong
1.5
1.5
) Does Topography Indicate A
latural Draina e Way? 0 .5 1 1.5
ECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ,
1. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Is Water In Channel And >48 His Since 0 5 1 I.5
.ast Known Rain? (*NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And 95 Below*)
Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 5 1
i) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channe
TCONDARY HYDROL OGYINDIC.RTOR POINTS:
11. Biology Absent Weak
Strong
Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
* NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants 2 1 75 5 0 0
n Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAVPre ent*)
'ECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ,?D
Moderate
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = 9)
(If Gr eater Than Or Equal To 19 Points the Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
x = STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ??' i 2., Evaluator's name:
r?`??1L1
3. Date of evaluation: 1 ? 4. Time of evaluationn- X41
5. Name of stream: LIT To aN,%__ 6, River basin-
Approxim +e d--mane area- R .Ch•Pam or'dei: - !A A111
7,
9, Length of reach evaluated: 10, County: Y"t11.?
11.. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
?a IL
s . " gitude (ex -7 7 556611): _ ----
Latihlde(ex 34.$72312): Lon
Method location determined (circle): GPS I opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks-s and7 attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Y o ?SL l"" 3? ?j?
Z d f?A-r bz? 7 0m
14, Proposed channel work (it any): 4'"tol tk? ?C?l __
15. Recent weather conditions: 16„ Site conditions at time of visit:i t73?` ! S
1'7, identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters. --Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (9) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19, Does channel appear on USGS quad map? G)NO 20.. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? r YES 'NO
21, Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial ?% Industrial /o Agricultural
Forested ?% Cleared I Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24.. Channel slope down center of stream: ?F lat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) - WModetate (4 to 10°/O) -Steep (>10%)
25, Channel sinuosity: ` `renStraight Occasional bends -Frequent meander Vety sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown fbr the ecoregion Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g, the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. c}
Total Score (from reverse): d Comments: 'r#' 11.{eT t?fT
Evaluator's Signature t_JVk, Date G,'11.E
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality, The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement.. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x26
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
f'T AK ('" 'FRfS` 'iCS LCOREGION POtN'F RANGF
Coastal Pie(1111 fit MI-motaiu
- - Pre?eoce of Elr,w trcrsistent pool,, io 5trearu -
Evidence of past human alteration

f
k i r,., t 1 tv or satur,at un 0: atrong slow - tn.?? ? I I, a °l
- - ? - -
? 1?"tf?n,n:.?:tet'3#iC>.E? ,;T?tt:altCritEi??rl - r,i?L, ]).,lrits",
rtc?Fritler'--€t;cvntiM3+tit,s,%,.ide6€€EYCr-1n;Ix p??i€?tl I
Ev+rlctrce of nutt-ie+rt or clrenriull discllar2cs
1
icxtcrasxti?c discharge,, = 0: rio t,ot€Its $
C?rorrnd?+:lterrkiticftai?ge I 11 CF-?#
i II-0 di;eh?rrz ?:- fl, prln?'s, sups. 1RCF1Tf1(iti, ctC. - 1Tiax pifu1t51
I- -
? Presence uId<li;af-E+It tlo[xfi3fair1
irla i?,i„da?ini€€ il; c?tcn.r??? fly odpJarur rn??, prrirtt} F;nirenehrrrent, flt?oritrl:rin access
Ideepi?' clrit?errclTea rf? liegtt?rrt tluurlirT_? - nTt', t;r,irrE}
F'rEticns=e of tdj.?cPttt Wetl+rrrls
ir b C?-4
('3r luuel wirrnositti -
eKTCr,'lvu Vil'lriri?AiZi1liolI [1L[Ea[rat Irlt.TIIIICF pond,
ticdinrent iliput
e>ae 5tt C ,turrl 0: little or lro CJMICII? T, iti r. po[at_?f
- Site di?ersiEy of channel hest sntrstrate - {y - 4
I, fln' iI,, in u.n ous - 0, large, diverse sizes n1ax }i }En[,.
t . rrlencc of channel incision arwidening C ?} ? t
iiett?E? rocis?d 11, -table bed & brti n1.T. p. pints t
T Presence of major hank failures cv?rr ?,+??.inat ?o ero-iim Stable hauls rrr,:
SCORE
i
a
a
r l u--

14 1 Root depth and density Am banks
Ili, i isibleroots €.1, dense rook throu> Itout - nax poll][
f In 1 ut faV'+ rirulture livestock or timber rodnction

?}-4
'pra3elt:; ? -
a substantial Tr1 ipact 0: axe << I, efrce T max
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pcnl r.o+n131c.e
? ? 'i I, , uf?tl.? i q??iTketi ?r Povla -0; well-tle?'eiopr?:i` to a p???in€-r ? _
?
.t
17 f lbit:lt Complexity
f lithe of n iT tzit?tt I ?. Fr ?3trctit. uttncii n+l?1{1l>, - irT`i=: point) E
^^ ` [ ruupv eo?cra2c olcr titre rrnhec} _ I
..? - -
?,urtrrtrE?trs+.-an.py ' IW1A pu111i:1 F
.1 4
-T z€1?tE ids ]tc c0n1 t; etltle[lt t 3 r. - ,ttr
?{?cp -
Pr eenrc of stream hi vertchr ate,, l cc palae } -
,
1 110't't'rlnrinorl rlttt
r ` Presence of amphibians
n„ ii n_ , ,int,,
- -
Presenee €rf tisb
4h4 f1-? Q I
.J
?...I ?` u?,ic?l?icncc-,i ?.LrncKi.#xltrtetrusi?,t?e n11h.?rrtt?) _'
l,Fidenceof tivildl+te use _-
t -b i- Lk-
fn,? II_,rF,irnd.tutc r_«lu=L: r?T'r?: xlnt;l
- Total Points Possibl0 1 ris`a ?"11? i iii)
- r5t pdc?2l
TO FAI, SCORE 1.tI;{r erotr c,n 11-
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
2
Lit N
1CDW Stream Classification Form
'roject Name: _Gfl? t'u,3L -i River Basin: County: {EGA tai L } t, Evaluatout' cr
)WQ ProjectVumber: Nearest Named Strcam: Latitude: Signature: yI i?
)ate: 10 USGS QUAD: 5?--`# -Wf) Longitude: L•ocation/Dir lions:
PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that thefeature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best
rofessional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream this rating system should not be used*
'rimary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomorpholoszy Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 2 3
Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
) Is `T'here An Active (Or Relic)
rs mere is Darrtuu I Dclltirl ricsc,??-
} Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I 2 3
*NOTE7 I Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*) __-
.0) Is A 2°d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Mao AndlOr In Field) Present? Yes=3 N 0
'RIMARYGEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: -41
1., Hydrology
) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present?
'RIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
IL. Biology Absent W k Moderate Strong
Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 1 0
'RIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS.,
ieconda Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Iine)
,) Does Topography Indicate A
-'ECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
1. Hydroloay Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
) Is Water In Cbanne] And >48 Ilrs Since 0 5 1
.ast Known Rain? NOTE: I Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Ski 7his Ste And #5 Below*
;) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 5 1 1 5
;onditions Or In Growing Season)?
1) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes-I.5 No=O
TCONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
II. Biology
Absent WeLak Moderate Strong
) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
?* NOTE:• ,f Total Absence Of All Plants 2 1 75 5 0 0
n Streambed As Noted Above Skip nis Step UNLESS SAV A ese t*)
ECONDARY BIOL OGY INDICA TOR POINTS.
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) =
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
i- F119=
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1„ Applicant's name:
3., Date of evaluation: !116) , ? /? ,
5.. Name of stream: Lt 4C? tom, t (?[I 5.
'7 A nnrnYlm ATP. f raninange are..A'
9. Length of'reach evaluated:,
11., Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex 34 $72312):
2, Evaluator's name: 4, Time of evaluation: ?"Cy?!)

6., River basin: i'}i ' (Z`m
R.. 1;traam nrdei: l?
10. County: 12, Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex -77.556611
Method location determined (circle): GPS T opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13, Location of'reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): ??? KAD
14.. Proposed channel work (if
15, Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time
L-?
17, Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 ?Iidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed --(I-IV)
18., Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO if yes, estimate the water surface area:
19.. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ( NO
21.. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential
f% Forested
1
22, Bankfull width: i
r of stream: F lat (0 to 2%)
24. Channel slope down t
ight -Occasional bends
25.. Channel sinuosity: tra
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
%Commercial % Industrial Agricultural
_% Cleared / L ogged % Other
23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank): c?
Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
-Frequent meander TVery sinuous -Braided channel
instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown far the ecoregion_ Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather' conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 4?
Evaluatox's Signature Wr t - - - Date VO Z) vl:
.
This channel evaluation form ' intende t be use only as a guide to assist landowner's and environmental professionals in
gathering the data r'equir'ed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality., The total score resulting tiom the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement, Form subject to change - version 06/03 To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION' POINT RANGE C'HARAC"ITRIS ICti tit'URE
Coastal Piedmont MotinIain
Presence of now r persistco pools in stream
# } 5
nii El, w sir stltiki,ttirtri 0 ;tr TIEl IV, Mal" h"hats)
?
??•:I n,n - CFrdctcc of p?ist human al eration
alto CtEIE?n 0; Ilia ?It {',kiiAtt -- m.'p ?UUll51
Kin irian rune Lr - -
no horfer - co raii, III )II!, "Ode hutfer tnLr, poiuts?
T -
Litc4cuce of Hutt real[ oa tltetnical tit>chares
extensive ski L ttcr-Le U- 11o di ekaarIC, nlL , trtnfsi
.? -
Gronnd-Atter diseh rr 3e ?! l - 1
? Ills ? I??l1F??C-11 =?f1Ha ?.C?? "t.,tl t#t,i ?], cIC_ - ?13V t)llli}T `,I -
-- t1i, Ilor? e plat iscnee Of;Aj? e rtfloodplain 4
sirs a h?.iiiats] -
r
Entrenehinent,'flfiodplmuacce`s n - )-2
x? tiri;; 13oitaTsl U
"" deeply tu?rcra?ii? i -a? i.egix•ntft
- - - -- -
1'resence of adjacent «etl,and,, Pr?a ?F?eFCandcu f?r?? ?Eftt?ceral et?tl??r?s nta?,vp,,tnTs} O
?i Channel sinuosity fr - y 4 ?
t Eerr?:iti:e channcltzaf os'n t); mnttnai ttie itder as fF,tur?l
lU - Sediment input i -s -1 0- 4
t (:ttcrr iTti J t? po I tcrt - ll, Iittic or n,,, SctIint(:nt ui 1 pr?tTit, I
Si7,e eta di,. ersitt of channel bed substrate
t firtc, htttri[rr?z€??+u, - (+ I ,t ne, din erne ?t? e , - tn?i? rx,ttir? 1-
1 Evidr_uce (if channel incision or N, identn-
?r1
rfICt;'?et +J :table ?d & i><ytl.s nett ?"crint_;)
r
Presenue of major bank Ntlur-e _
i ?cVerf et n,ion 0; Do cn ion; stable, ba rL ut?r?; t?c?mCSl
x 10Yisitrle ro<)ts 0E i and roodensity on ts thtoui l't11 -- itr t ,t'ml, i f
impact by agriculture. ii%'estock, or tituber production _
5 r 4
(sttbstata#iaiittrlrtt J no -.ytdenetr=tamk_i,,ynts} -
Pa c,,,cnce of riffle po,'A/ripple-pool complexes
_ i i I44
l l,LI hit;a t complexity - (?
r (tittle L!r ri, hahtftt fire ?t?ttt, vaned hlhjt,it; ?int? }
t anop? coverage over strc imbed
Substrate embeddedne-4 4
?Lcgh, ern}?rddud 0 I;n?sc stn-i,?nfre.
Presence of stream inverteha atcs i cc
i 4 p (?
noe? r?lr nee Common, numerousE;?s u?rxpt?nlrl
l Presence of amphibiast4
n
4 4
n,eli?feit?e o c,,trttn n iu_mercur types rraalp inC: ]
Presence. of fish -
v.? c? idcrt4 - t? , crrxkritaia, ntltticrolls tk. m,rti J" rIl, I
? i- -
I Nidence of wildlife use
' _ ihrttid.tnt e?tccncc ?te?e._ ?.?trtt;'
Total Points Possible fIIo f1(} Ir}il
TOTAL, SCORE (dk t cntLlr on 1-irst
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
4CDW Stream Classification Form _
'rojectName: LP,714?_X 2vw°T6,V44RiveiBusin: i?zy'wc> LC ? I County: Evaluator:
)WQ Projec N tuber: Nearest Named Stream: De?? V'"Latitude: 35,1?1Ut Signature: Py
)ate: 1o?3? USGS QUAD: S?',f ?`-? Longitude: "5? -k ?a0"L.ocation/DireMons: i a '{ Isis?
PLEASE NO IF: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best
rofessional judgement ofthe evaluator, thefeature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream his rating system should not be used'
'rimary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Strong 2
} Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
;) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
1) Is A Continuous Bed &. Bank Present? 0 1 'L
*NOTE _IfBed & Bank Caused & Ditchin And WITHOUT Sinuosi Then Score=0*
0) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field Present? Ye No=0
'RIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
I. Hydrology Absent W?e k Moderate Strong
) Is There A Groundwater F1owfDischarge Present? 0 {I6 2 3
'RIMARYHYDROL 0GYINDICATOR POINTS;'
IL Biology Abs nt Weak Moderate Strong
Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 2 1 0
Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 2 1 0
Is Peri h on Present? 0 2 3
Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3
'RIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS,
secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Numbet Pet Line)
Geomorpholoi!v Al gent Weak Moderate Strong
Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1.5
Does Topography Indicate A ?-?
3atural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1 1.5®
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: r
1. Hydrolo2 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is This Year's (Or Last's) L eaflittei
Present In Strearbed? 1.5 .5 0
Is Sediment On Plants Or Debris Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 5 1 1.
Is Water In Channel And >48 His. Since 0 5 1
,ast Known Rain? (*NOTE: 1 Ditch Indicated In 0 Above Ski This Ste And 45 Below'
Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5
1
5
:onditions Or In Growing Season ?
it Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel Or In Headcut ? Yes=1.5 No 0
.'ECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
IL. Biology
Absent Weak
Strong
Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SA'V Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
M NOTE: If Total Absence Of'All Plants 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
n Streambed 4s Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*)
IECONDARYB10l,OGYINDI'CATOR POINTS:
TOIAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = 4116
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points the Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
21ful! STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1, Applicant's name:. 2, Evaluator's name:
I?
3., Date of evaluation: t01 4, Time of evaluation: i
S., Name of stream: ??-•'I? 6.. River basin: ff¢?
7 ?nnrnvimata.-3rainacYa araa• ?rlr-L??..? ?y R .Ctrpam nrrjPt° NA1?
9, L ength of reach evaluated: 10. County:
11., Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12, Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex 34 872312): a6 1 60(6 Hol -? f (p?? L.ongitude (ex '77556611):
JZJI C ??a? ?E
Method location determined (circle): GPS I opo Sheet rio Aerial Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13.. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): P
FgcK -L- , 'TAY-F, 5 ?1> , "tip ; ftyf- L?,
14., Proposed channel work (if any):
15, Recent weather conditions:
bb`s
16, Site conditions at time of visit: L74 d5
17, Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Water's _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18.. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES elf yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 20, Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21, Estimated watershed land use. L% Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22„ Bankfull width: l l23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3
24.. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) 7 entle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25.. Channel sinuosity: Straight _ Occasional bends `t Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e g, the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality -~?
?Xz?+1c 6 <e < C
Total Score (from reverse): i? Comments:
Evaluator's Signature -1740- Date VL4Jl U
Ihis channel evaluation fo is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subjectto change-version 06103 To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
LCORLGION POINT RA-S,(;
k CHARACTERISTIC, SCORE
C_oast3l 1 iedntori ??lnnntain
I rt?encc of flow/ persistent p0011 in ,trr un
(1 4 rl-ti
', ' 4 nu (lfity t#t=SatPErQEit[? " f3: 3Ei'ortu tlE>>,? n It?.) ? 1 r Its I - -_
m Evidence of piist human altL?ra f vm
y i exCnSlle ait2?trlvn ?1, tlr? alterafl€tl r[1t?ti h tr]t _
E2i?r?ri:xn inrle- n
6 fI 4 J -
buttu= b'
oF-viden eof nutrient or chemical ma; t« int;j
tldtaCt.rr,ce )-; ?t tl
eztcnsrs'e dis?i? u_cs- (l, no it,shttr?! - u faotfits I
l romidwater tlitieh.la ?e
t1 -t t1-4
*r
-. , nn ?Iisch er ?c - s? 5 zisri???, arc es, Fr?EI<t#??1;. ctc.
-- Presence't11 adjacent flowl]rlain
h t- 1-4
' (no Clr,adplair3 ?,t_n.r?e fkn?di?l?1r37 rt1i-tsaint=.r
?„T - l;ntrrnchtncnt t??aodlllain ?eclss ?
} -?
fcetllti enrreu?irtu ,1, tr.cjE=.eitt tlvtutn? m?tx irirrt.;}
Presence of <ldiacent. wetl rnds 4 -
r? Liluril?. ?af?-e 1iI?Z?ettt wetiat],I, - 111 sa pt!i11 1
?6 et.tcnsi?? clttinrlcll ?rla -1nn[}1 ?i.Iturrrlrfnc,rnclcr = rn?: 1 r int. 1- 0 - -t1 -
f
it Sediment input 4
} S U
1 ?,tltnst?e dclri'5ltfort Eh little or nu sedaroent [11,1-c Por
?iz.e &- diversity ofrhannel bed substrate
t1 ? ?i s::4? n t
j ( do C. i1Vr11ti1{TErlkStrS' ff large_ [tz er_,4 s1 max ])I lit'It,1 -
t
Fvideure of channel incisjon or ?F idening
r. { rjc?a?h ms -Cd -0-, stable bed & ban rtrat i?air3ts' 1 Cr
F" - Presence of major bank failm e, - -
?- ever ?- r, 0_ npem-ion! :,tablelitnk:: - tTr,,x trrnnt,,j
Runt depth and dewdb on hanks
1
i --i
n,r visible roots - 0: €lerlse root through, ut - tnux pour€; ,
/ [mpt+ct by a2ricullure, tit'cs#nel:. nt €irnhcr prodticti(m
tsttbsttntial impact [); 610 1,Vid-[1CC - P1[a'i hc?nTt;t
Pt escncc of rifllc pnul'`ril)hlc-17s1u1 rurnpiekrs
?.?ti hoirllti
_ I r2 r rjlllc r ja?plc= Qrpt)ctts tt Fwell-develrIPLt i - ti
i - Habitat complexity
r3itCle or n.I ItahiFrt ft.ilueltf, earrerl#f rhritt:, -irra:, l>urr3i 1 57
? ?, CanoUv eoti er a_e E1? er s[rea rtl?ctl _ _
„ Ito 5i7;td [El F'??tdll??tl - t.r CUML11MOU]-G tlllat,,,: nT{. }?i?lt}E:?'Y
tinllstratc embeddednec S --
- (Ij?trsh. 21rlhcdtte+1 I-I [?',";? Stnich€rt - t ?ttr -- -
I"1 eSE nce of stre:tin rnF crtcbrate.S 1 tirc: 1 ci r _
a e <<ie.t?? °t' e?;rFrrc«,?., ,ttt te,?Kts fypC? =pal _ , lit r
.r Pretence of amphibians
?.,' [nr??tii?l???c: _ ?f: _c!nlrxr??n, rnrrn?rnil_; #? Pc_; -1115 ?t:?1nr t
,. I'mence of tish
` i
n I\ pr I
°r rttl, ix?1nt,?
?; in r c+,i?itn?.? rr: ??rr3rE1t1H1, aillit UW
Evidence ot"m0ldfife use
o C IL:n1_,: a11u1 tdAfIt _?j?lcuct ° r?t:E? flcirti,J
Total Points Possible I tsl_1 I ? d
TOTAL SCORE ta?sr: enter rxt iirsf ??a?r?} j
* These characteristics ate not assessed in coastal streams
2
4CDWO Stream Classification Form _
'roject Name: T??)tiver Basin: YCc?iL??? County: 7$2- Evaluator:
)WQProject N mber: Near est Named Stream: LATrL--P-,v9,4_'Latitude: Signature:
)ate: USGS QUAD:`4V•ZI&s} '_--+4E_ f Longitude: '?a (o 0?;-? L,ocation/Dire'tttions:
PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner as ee that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best
rofessional judgement ofthe evaluator, thefeature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
'rimary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomor halo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
l Is There A Riffle-Pool Seouence? 0 1 &LP 3
,) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
;) Is There An Active (Or' Relic)
?.) [ E1G1G fl U0.AAAA UiE i?
Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
*NOTE IfBed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUI Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
0) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On TORO Man And/Or In Field) Present? Yeso No=O
'RIMARY GEOMORPHOL OG Y INDICA TOR POINTS:
1. Hydrology
) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present?
'RIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
IL. Biology
'RIMARYRIOIOGYINDICATOR POINTS,
Absent WSkk Moderate Strong
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
;econdar Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
) Does Topography Indicate A
natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1
'ECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: -2-LS-
1. Hydrolosy Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Is Water In Channel And X48 Hrs Since 0 .5 1 1.5
.ast Known Rain? *NOTE: I Ditch Indicated In r#9 Above Ski This Ste And 45 Below*
} Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 5 1 I.5
,ECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II.. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants 2 1 75 5 0 0
n Streambed.As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAY Pisent*)
ECONDARYBIOIOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) A
(I£ Greater Ihan Or Equal To 19 Points the Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map}
77 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -,,s? '
s
Provide the following information for the stream teach under assessment: ?
1, Applicant's name: Ii 2, Evaluator's name: 1 Date of evaluation: IO. G 4, Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream:
d _ ???.<, b.. River basin: 3 ??-
7 Approximate rirainane area: ?r?. L,12,,1-%? R.. 1;tr'enm ntdet, ?f? sib
"' ?i4 LLIkG t
9.. L ength of reach evaluated: 10., County:
11.. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12., Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex 34 872312): ? 3I Ie sm_' ' Longitude (ex -71556611): ~CJ ? ???
Method location determined (circle): GPS I opo Sheet rtlio Aerial) Photo/G1S Other GIS Other
13, Location of'reach under evaluation (note nearby roads an ma` rrKs and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Sri i C 4 s`? ii
14., Proposed channel work (if any):
15., Recent weather conditions:
16., Site conditions at time of visit:-
17., Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18, Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (9 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19, Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20„ Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ?% Residential % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
?0% F of ested % Cleared /Logged -% Other (
f ?
22, Bankfull width: na 23 Bank height (from bed to top of bank): s
24, Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 21/.) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25.. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation.. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g, the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date I?'l C1L3 1
This channel evaluation Drum is interNe to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality.. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03 To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
[[ OREGION POINT RANG
CHARACTERtSTICti SCORE
CimstaI Fiedniorit Mountain
L
Presence of flow persistent p(wis in stream - 4 5
{cxttn„eoit?nce of past hltnitrtr isEter:rfi1? ir; i?ait;! k r, {i Riparian zone -
ii 4 0-?
11 hut?er a ?tlntj?rnE?h_I , v,idc btlfttt?r=Max point"
't
Li ldence of nutrient or ehetnieat 4wiial tics
-1 4
__ _ ic?icn;iae di ??Iar?cs tL Igo ?:: ?har!??, nla tr. irrt r
{.'rcunidr4ater discharge
D -; 0 -i to 4
nu dl;cil.lr<<r = a riu ceps, tictllltlci etc. - nra:: Pollrts't
Pr csence o f adjacent ffoodpLain
-
(m) ti,x?dtr}anl -{); c?tL•tr,iye Ilrrrdfrhrnl rFOx pclintsa 4 4 0 ?
Fritlenchment17nndplain aece s - _ 0
G 1 deep1 cnErene ht U; Frei uant t?<ne llo? - m a\ poin -t t7(
-
Presence of I rljaceiitFle lands
ft r, ll 4 al
v,et[IrlEis, II lrlr l lc:rrtt ti tiaEl € - Ire t', I r,IrrI.l
h
tcarsi? E
. hanncIE•?? t i tiTi - EJ, ill Ir it rL Pi;lcr = ma: f t -Sediment input
CSC flsa'??' ilepV`Y[toii (1, ]Etc wno wdintera mays'] ntl,
I j in , IlSue & tans ersit? of channel bed substrate ?A ? 4
I-I3 je, s 7YCTSU
Evidence of clr:anlael intisinn or widening lllllll- -
i -
?• &chl ?E M& e Nd cit. bmks = mil . vmN I
Presence of major back failures
5
A' C r :. erustclt? stable Er?attk 111 ax prutlt? I
(tip
cl I O IF I - n o - - - -- -- -
Root d
1 a() Vi SiIII trrnt', kl,tlh and ' derlElIOUShCo U I - LtaaX Point t 0-d -
litipact by agriculture llvestoel., or timber prvdizrtion
Is 0-? (1-4 ? tl
I .,nhstata#ial ttttp.ti:C I1 Ito ?t I?f?ncc In tt purrtES}_ r
- Plcscnlce of ril?fc pool rippic-pool c?unplctcs -
([-I", rf fl?cc aPPlz r pu«1, sr, _i?olot-I ? I
' llahlta# et?iTipleritg
I G
- f LrtlEc 'IF r) I I;rhltat I}: Prcr{air [rl. ? 'rrECd ii ?hEt??I in ay iii rot I -:
E_.annpF co?araU
C over sire Imbed
i o -
I 0, whadlrl + cncl,tunrt 6, tuattinuvus can cIn - ma\ Pwllq -
Z 4ubstrate eiiheddediiess -
4 \' ai p I} .?
ctnf,c lricd } Iarrlse _.1nI(Irtlrr = PII r, i
--
Presence IIf streaw inyer tehimtes (s€e Ira c 41 -
na) L1'1_ILII_E c?anain?n, ni7qCft16? - nn.i.y pi}ilrt: f
1 i'reseiiceof n I?ipliRoianc
F - -l 1
ti. ;_ Ult? CSI cn,- . E com(norn, mimeronS t_y$)rs - PON 06w,, o '
Presence of fish
4 0 -1 - 4
(;%riji ,nCL? - ?]- L011ii:IT In 1111 €1TCfiinb t%hc-?. -IIl Lt prillit;J - - ----
l ti idenee of "Adlife use 1',
I rY(? eV1?CHl:? t): a€111 f1?dnt r? f?i! PiC? all 3p: r.r{IS CS I i
?:1(t lf?i}
f'otal Points Possible. I00
TOTAL SCUM (akc) tinter (m hol pt_Q
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
2
Appendix F
Monitoring Well Data
Monitoring Well Locations
Y IM, Appendix F
5t II] ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
1'17?II3Lt Fletcher-Meritor Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan I Henderson County, NC
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program I EEP Project No. EP4260721 I State Constr. Project No. D05039S
Automated Well #1 vs.
Daily Precipitation
5 5

0 0

5 5
- -
10 10
- -

15 15
- -
c
20 20
- -
25 25
- -
Daily Precipitation
-30 t Ground Water Elevation -30
-35 -35
\1'^
\0\°^°^°^ \°?
,\
V
11
11 ti
4
?10

Date
Automated Well #2 vs.
Daily Precipitation
5
0
-5
-10
-15
c
-20
-25
? Daily Precipitation
-30
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35 - - -35
Q\1111 1111 411, Q\1111 411, 81111 111, 4111, ?,Q, O° ti \,°4Q, ti \°^ti???\°°^ti?0°^ti???\°°°^ti???\°^ 4 4°? §b 0? 0? cb cb cb
Date
t Ground Water Elevation
5
0
-5
-10
-15
c
-20
-25
Automated Well #3 vs.
Daily Precipitation
? Daily Precipitation
-30
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35 -35 4111, 1-1\111 4111, 411, 4111, 4111, 4111, 1-1\111 Q\IQI ?\,Q, OQI 41Q, I)\QI \z "\z \z \z
Q0 ,sO 4?\ 411\1
Date
t Ground Water Elevation
Manual Well #1 vs.
Monthly Precipitation
10 -7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- r 10
5 ------------ -epfeinber:332iri.------------------------------------------December.4.12hi --------------------- 5
October: 2.94 in.
January 2.34 in.
Novemb?1.45in-- I---------- 0 ---------------- ---------------- - - - - - - - - - - ---------- ----------------- 0
-5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
® -6.7
-7.9
U
U
T".
?I
-10 ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------f -10
-15 --------------------6.--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
-16.3
-20 --------------------------------------------------------19.2 • -------------------------------------20
-25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --25
Monthly Precipitation
-30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ground Water Elevation 30
-31.8
-35 -35
ti°x° ti4zx°? ?,,X°? °?°^?\?,X°°?° -,,X°°°??ti?°
Date
U
U
C
Manual Well #2 vs.
Monthly Precipitation
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10
5 ------------ -epfeinber:3.52iri.------------------------------------------December.4.12hi ---------------------- 5
October: 2.94 in.
November: January: 2.34 in
1.45 in. -
0 ---------------- ---------------- - - - - - - - - - - ---------- ----------------- I - ------- 0
-s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ®-4.3- 5
-10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -10
® -13.4
-15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -15
-20 ------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -20
-21.2
-25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -25
® -25.7
® -28.2 Monthly Precipitation
-30 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ground Water Elevation -30
-35 -35
tiX°^ (2x^ ?xx (xx ti\°^ ,\°^ ?P ti,°^ 4\o? P 411S\ ?oS o\o? o\o? ?o? o?S\ ?o? o?S\ "01 ?o? ?Ob ?ob
??ti a? \ti \ti \ti \ti 0 0 NoAti `' ?ti\ti `' tip`' ?ti\ti `' `'
Date
10
5
0
-5
-10
U
U
T".
?I
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Manual Well #3 vs.
Monthly Precipitation
-----------September:332iri.------------------------------------------December. ill 2iii .---------------------
October: 2.94 in.
January: 2.34 in.
---------- Novembe1.45in.- ?-
?---------------- ------------ ---------- ----------------- -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -------------------------------=19.3
-------------------- .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly Precipitation
-28.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
? Ground Water Elevation
-34.9
ti\°^ ti\°^ \4)'\ o?°^ h?°^ o?°^ h?°^ o?°^ ^ o?°^ h?°^ o?°^ h?°^ o?°^ o\,°? 4°?
o, or", 01r, 4P ti1\
Date
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Appendix G
Entrainment Calculations
ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Stream: Fletcher Reach: Existing
Team: JRR / WDY Date: 12/27/2007
Information Input Area
9.0 D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
2.0 D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
32.00 Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm) 0.10 (feet) 304.8 mm/foot
0.0032 Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
2.80 de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
1.80 R Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
1.65 gs Submerged specific weight of sediment

Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
4.50 D50/D 50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t ci = 0.0834(D50/D 50)-0.872
3.56 Di/D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t ci = 0.0384(Di/D50 )-0887
0.0225 t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used: 1

Calculation of Bank full Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample

1.22 dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft) dr = t cigsDi
Se

2.80 de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
2.29 de/dr Existing Stream Condition: Degrading

Calculati on of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample

0.0014 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft) Sr = t ci sDi
de

0.0032 Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft)
2.29 Se/Sr Existing Stream Condition: Degrading
Sediment Transport Validation
1 0.36 113ankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 Ibs/ft3
71
0.12
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (predicted by the Revised Shields Diagram by
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (see Revised Shields Diagram,
Note: If available bankfull shear stress exceeds D100 of bed, dearadation potential exists.
ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Stream: Fletcher Reach: Proposed
Designer: JRR / WDY Date: 12/27/2007
Information Input Area
9.00 D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
2.00 D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
32.00 Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm) 0.10 (feet) 304.8 mm/foot
0.0021 Se Proposed bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
1.70 de Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
0.66 R Proposed Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
1.65 gs Submerged specific weight of sediment

Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
4.50 D50/D 50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t ci = 0.0834(D50/D 50)-0.872
3.56 Di/D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t ci = 0.0384(Di/D50 )-0887
0.0225 t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used: 1

Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample

1.85 dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft) dr = t cigsDi
Se

1.70 de Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
0.9 de/dr Proposed Stream Condition: Stable

Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample

0.0023 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft) Sr = t ci sDi
de

0.0021 Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft)
0.9 Se/Sr Proposed Stream Condition: Stable
Sediment Transport Validation
1 0.09 113ankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 Ibs/ft3
25
0.12
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (predicted by the Revised Shields Diagram by
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen,
Note: If available bankfull shear stress exceeds D100 of bed, dearadation potential exists.