20080879 Ver 1_401 Application_20080508

Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
May 21, 2008 Asheville, North Carolina 28806
NC Division of Water Quality 828-350-1408
Att: Cyndi Karoly 0 8 0 8 7 9 FAX [phone]
401/Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604 --.--------
Subject: Preconstruction Notification and request for 404 and 401 permits for the construction of
the EEP Full Delivery Project called "Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project". Logan
Creek, Savannah River Basin - CU# 03060101, Jackson County, NC.
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Enclosed with this letter are five (5) copies of the Pre-Construction Notification, EEP approved
restoration plan, project plan set, EEP approval letter and an electronic version of these materials.
I have also attached to the PCN a check for $570.00 to cover the application fee. Baker has
signed an MOU with DWQ for electronic submission of applications and we have attempted to
follow DWQ's guidance with this. In addition I have sent one additional copy directly to Kevin
Barnett to save your office the time and expense of forwarding it to him. We have also submitted
this information to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and
N.C. Land Quality Section for their review. We are providing this information for your
department's consideration and comments relative to 401 permitting.
Logan Creek is designated C, trout by the Division of Water Quality and this stream does support
a resident trout population. The attached plans should provide the information needed to evaluate
this permit request and we are prepared to meet with personnel from your office to further discuss
the project, if you so desire. We believe that the proposed activities are necessary to address
existing erosion and sedimentation problems and should provide long-term improvements that
will greatly decrease the possibility of future instability at this site. We have made great efforts to
avoid impacting most of the mature trees on this site. In addition we will be planting diverse
native herbaceous and woody vegetation that should provide further increase long-term stability.
As required by the EEP program we have established a conservation easement on this site that
will protect the stream corridor from the on-going development in this watershed. We believe
that the results of this project will improve habitat at this site for native aquatic and terrestrial
species and provide long-term protection.
We recognize the need to adhere to the trout spawning moratorium on this project. We are trying
to move this project to construction as soon as possible in order to implement part of the project
prior to the fall closure. We would then complete the project in the spring. Your timely review
will be appreciated.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please contact me as
soon as possible at 828-350-1408 ext. 2002 or 828-734-7445.
Sincerely,
A U,
Micky C12mons
Office Principal, Baker Engineering, NY Inc.
f'
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Plan -Draft
? Jackson County, North Carolina
k

0

'
Prepared For

UOSY'Steill

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd., Suite I H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
May 15, 2008
1

EEP No. D06046-A
Office Use Only: Form Version arch 05
0 8 0 8 7
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing ?` A I
?.
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: _-
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for e
o F , t?? o C?GD
II. Applicant Information
MAY MAY 2 7 2008
1. Owner/Applicant Information
DEW - wAiER cxuAurr
Name: NC EEP
sane e.....«.............
BRANCH
Mailing Address: Attn: Mr. Guy Pearce
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:_ [phone]
E-mail Address: Guy. Pearcegncmail.net
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mr. Micky Clemmons, Office Principal
Company Affiliation: Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
Mailing Address: 797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville NC 28806
Telephone Number: 828.350.1408. x2002 Fax Number: 828.350.1409
E-mail Address: mclemmonsgmbakercorp.com
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 1 of 10
III. Project Information
5
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 7582-58-9296 and 7582-67-2197
4. Location
County: Jackson Nearest Town: Cashiers, NC
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Lonesome Valley
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The site is located off of
Hwy 64, 2.5 miles east of the intersection of Hwy 64 and State Route 107. The site begins
upstream approximately 6,700 stream feet north of the crossing of Hwy 64 and Logan Creek
and ends at the Hwy 64 crossing.
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.134867 ON 83.062511
6. Property size (acres): 733.56
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Horsgpasture River
8. River Basin: Savannah
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mal)s/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The general area surrounding the site is in the early stages
of development as an exclusive residential community. Land cover on the project site is
forest with grassed fields along approximately half of the stream. Mowed areas are
sheet that
ow
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 2 of 10
maintained by Lonesome Valley as a recreation area for the development. Trees and
rhododendrum thickets grow along the stream corridor. Riparian buffers vary in with from 0
to over 100 feet. Most of the project reach appears to have one of two problems: either over-
widened with debris jams, aggradation and channel erosion or accelerated meandering and
erosion due to a lack of vegetation. As a result, Logan Creek is transporting an extensive
load of sediment to areas of the channel downstream of the project site and the Horsepasture
River. Restoration and enhancement activities proposed will stabilize the channel, halt over-
widening, establish proper pattern, significantly diminish bank erosion and establish a
diverse riparian plant community.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Restoration and enhancement activities proposed for this site include: establishing a
conservation easement along the left and right banks of Logan Creek, jading bankfull
benches in areas where the channel can no longer access its floodplain, installing wood based
structures to protect unstable stream banks, grading, planting unstable stream banks to
provide long-term stability and establishing a conservation easement to protect the stream
corridor from future impacts. Woody debris will be added to improve habitat for resident,
native trout and to improve sediment movement through the site. This work will require the
use of track-hoes with hydraulic thumbs, a bulldozer for grading and dump trucks to haul
materials around the site. Work will take place in the dry by constructing new channel
reaches offline and using pumps to pump water around areas where work will take place in
the existing channel.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of this project is to establish a
conservation easement on this section of Logan Creek, stabilize stream banks, allow the
stream greater access to its floodplain, and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The stream has
incised and is currently actively eroding and widening. If left unchecked, the existing
instability will continue to cause losses to private property and to public resources by
degrading water quality and aquatic habitat. This work is an EEP full delivery mitigation
project and also has the objective of providing mitigation credits for permitted impacts
elsewhere in the watershed.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. No prior permits have been requested or issued for this proposed project.
The developers of Lonesome Valley have received a permit for culverts they are putting in and
have mitigated there impacts with onsite restoration work. This has been managed through
C1earWater Environmental Consultants Inc.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 3 of 10
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permit requests anticipated If unforeseen repair work is required during the
monitoring period Baker Engineering will re-submit appropriate documentation for permitting.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: In order to accomplish the restoration
effort, impacts may be realized from temporarily increased turbidity when boulders or woody
materials are installed from temporary loss of vegetation and from altering stream channel
pattern. Impacts from this work will be avoided or minimized whenever possible. The over-
widened channel condition and bank erosion in Reaches 1 and 3 will be addressed by the
installation of wood based structures that will center the thalweg, improving sediment
transport and stabilizing ailing stream banks. The unstable stream pattern and erosion in
Reach 2 will be improved by grading a new sinuous pattern (Figure 6.1/plansheets). Bank
stability and habitat improvement will be accomplished by installing log structures or
bioen ing eering in meanders and along riffles. Grading a new cross-section will improve
sediment transport while providing improved trout habitat. Vegetation along the entire series
of project reaches will be modified to increase diversity by reducing the density of
rhododendron and planting a mix of species that root deeply and provide higher Quality
biomass to the stream to sgpport aquatic food chains (see attached plan and plant list).
Invasive vegetative species will be removed during reforestation efforts of the riparian buffer
and will be replaced with native species complementing channel restoration. Anticipated
long-term impacts of the project include an increase in stream bank stability, increased
heterogeneity of instream habitat and improved vegetative cover.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Updated 1 I /1 /2005
Page 4 of 10
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 1.71 acres
This acreage includes all the delineated wetlands within the Droiect site that will be included
within the conservation easement. These wetlands will not be impacted by restoration
activities and are not included in the mitigation crediting through EEP; however, we are
including them in the easement area for long-term protection.
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on ma) Intermittent? Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)

Reach 1 Logan Creek Installing structures, Perennial 22.6 450 .23
planting
Grading stream channel,
Installing log structures
Reach 2 Logan Creek & bioengineering, Perennial 26.9 3445 2.13
remove rhododendron
thickets replant
Perennial
Reach 3 Logan Creek Installing structures, 22.8 1
000 .52
planting ,
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 4,895 2.88
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 5 of 10
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
5. List the cumulative im act to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 2.88
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 4,895
6. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
There are a couple of ponds on the property but we do not believe these would be considered
isolated and in any case this project will not impact them
7. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A.
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The nature of stream
enhancement and restoration work requires that the work be done as described. To avoid and
minimize potential impacts we will be clearing and grubbing only that amount of stream bank
that can be graded seeded and matted by the end of the day. To minimize temporary impacts
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 6 of 10
caused by in-stream channel restoration work or channel pattern alteration, grading will be done
in the dry as much as possible. When work has to occur in the existing channel or connections to
sections of new channel have to be made, a temporary barrier will be set in place above the
construction area and water pooled above this barrier will be pumped around the area. The pump
and barrier will be removed when the area is stabilized. All graded ground surfaces will be
seeded with temporary and permanent seed, mulched and matted to prevent erosion. All staging
areas and soil stockpile areas will be separated from flowing water by grass buffer strips and/or
silt fencing. Erosion control BMPs will be used throughout the project to avoid sedimentation of
the stream. The attached planset shows details of these BMPs.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strrngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
This project is being done as an EEP mitigation project.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7 of 10
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at htip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wyM/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify V Yes ? No
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 10
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1
2
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 213.0242 or.0244, or.0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss stormwater
controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the property. If
percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations demonstrating total proposed
impervious level. The existing project site has no impervious surfaces. This project will not increase
the impervious surface area of the site.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 9 of 10

If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: N/A
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
We are aware of the trout water moratorium and hope to get permits in time to begin this work
this summer and hopefully finish However, we may not complete construction by October 15,
2008 and will have to finish after April 15, 2009
Applicant/Ag 's Signature hate'
(Agent's signa is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 10 of 10

os stem
En ar le ent
April 21, 2008 PROGRAM
Mickey Clemmons
Project Manager
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
RE: Restoration Plan Review for the Logan Stream Restoration Plan
Full Delivery Project
Jackson County - Savannah River Basin - CU#03060102
Contract No. - D06046-A
Dear Mr. Clemmons:
This memorandum confirms the responsibility for compliance with the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 and North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, Chapter 4 on the project
that is the subject of the above-referenced contract between the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) and Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
Pursuant to the contract, the above-referenced project is a full delivery project. This means that
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. has full operational control over the project. As the "developer or
other person who has or holds himself out as having ... operational control over the land-
disturbing activity" Baker Engineering NY, Inc. will be responsible for compliance with or any
violation of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 or North Carolina Administrative
Code Title 15A, Chapter 4. See 15A NCAC 04A .0105(8) and (9). Accordingly, any plan,
revised plan, compliance request, notice of violation, fine, penalty or other enforcement action
associated with this project remains the responsibility of Baker Engineering NY, Inc. to resolve
with regulatory or permitting agencies.
Please sign below and attach this memorandum to the Financial Responsibility/ Ownership form
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan application in order to obtain plan approval and
responsibility for erosion and sedimentation control solely in your name.
Respectively,
CAA
Jeff Jurek
Project Control and Research Director
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
To DENR Land Quality Section
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. hereby certifies that it has full operation control of this project for
all matters pertaining to the construction of this project and that it constitutes the "Person Who
Violates" and the "Person Conducting Land Disturbing Activity" as defined in 15A NCAC
4A.0105(8) and (9). Baker Engineering NY, Inc. also understands that it is responsible for
implementing any actions or measures necessary to comply with the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act.
Signed,
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
[Person with) luthority to Bind
M * tkk e-ternmon5 01 CC Pf45;L11+
Tact Signature, Printed Name and Title]
2
i

1
1
1
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Plan - Draft
Jackson County, North Carolina
Report Prepared and Submitted by Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
- Suite 201
- . Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Micky Clemmons, Senior Scientist
Project Manager
Jim Buck, PE
Project Engineer
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGEi
APRIL 30, 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
t Baker Engineering NY, Inc. (Baker) proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve nearly 8,131 linear feet (LF)
of stream along Logan Creek. In addition, 1.71 acres of existing wetlands will be preserved within the
easements that will be established; no mitigation credit will be sought for protecting these wetlands. The
' project site is located in Jackson County, approximately three miles east of Cashiers. The project site is on
property owned by the Lonesome Valley Company, Inc. and was previously held by a single family for many
years. The lands along the stream and in the surrounding area were logged 60 to 80 years ago. Since that
time various agricultural enterprises were conducted, including an apple orchard, trout farming, mink farming
' and livestock grazing; however, most of the land has been maintained as a forest. Cow Rock and Laurel
Knob are sheer granite cliffs that create a box canyon that surrounds this property. The present landowners
are actively developing the property as an exclusive, "environmentally friendly", low density residential
' development.
Logan Creek is a low gradient, gravel bed stream that supports a good trout population. Logan Creek is
within the Savannah River Watershed and is also within the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
' targeted local watershed 10020, the Horsepasture River basin. There are sections of Logan Creek that are
highly sinuous and other reaches that appear to have been straightened in the past. The channel is eroding its
banks in many locations where woody vegetation has been removed and a grass field developed. There are
' other areas where dense stands of rhododendron have shaded out deep rooted tree species producing unstable,
eroding banks and an over-wide condition. In stream habitat is primarily composed of woody debris and a
few scattered bedrock outcroppings.
The goals for the restoration project are as follows:
' • Create geomorphically stable conditions on the Logan Creek project site.
• Protect stable, well vegetated reaches of six tributaries to Logan Creek.
' • Improve the water quality in the Logan Creek watershed.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
' To accomplish these goals, we are proposing to do the following:
• Restore the existing eroding or over-wide stream reaches by creating a stable channel with access to the
' floodplain.
• Preserve well-functioning tributaries.
• Improve in-stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
' pools, providing woody debris for habitat, and reducing bank erosion.
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation to increase storm water runoff filtering capacity,
improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease water temperature, provide cover, improve wildlife
t habitat and protect this area with a permanent conservation easement.
• Improve terrestrial habitat by increasing the density of tree species that root deeply, by thinning the thick
stands of rhododendron within the easement area and planting a more diverse native plant community.
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE i APRIL 30, 2008

Table ES1
Logan Creek Restoration Overview
Project Feature ? Xistin 3 Desigu Approach
i Condition ? Condition
(Linear i?cd 4 (Linear Feet or z
or Acres) 1 Arcs) 1
i
Logan Creek reach 1 450 450 Liilaancement 1
Logan Creek reach 2 3,445 3,140 Restoration
Logan Creek reach 3 1,000 1,000 Enhancement I
Logan Creek (upstream of reach 1) 1,510 1,510 Preservation
UT I 65 65 Preservation
UT2 170 170 Preservation
UT3 305 305 Preservation
UT4 300 382 Preservation/Restoration
UT5 975 975 Preservation
Wetlands 1.71 1.71 Preservation
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE ii
APRIL 30, 2008

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location ................................................................................1-1
1.1 Brief Project Description and Location ...............................................................................................1-1
2.0 Watershed Characterization ............... ......................................................2-1
2.1 Watershed Delineation ............................................................... .........................................................2-1
2.2 Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality ............................. .........................................................2-1
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils ............................................... .........................................................2-1
' 2.4 Historic Land Use and Development Trends ............................. .........................................................2-3
4
2
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species ................................................. -
.........................................................
2.6 Cultural Resources ..................................................................... .........................................................2-7
2-8
2.7 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites ............................... .........................................................
2.8 Potential Constraints ................................................................... .........................................................2-8
3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions) ....................... .................................................... 3-1
3.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification ...................................................3-1
' 3.2 Channel Stability Assessment .................................................... .........................................................3-5
3.3 Bankfull Verification .................................................................. .........................................................3-6
' 3.4 Discharge .................................................................................... .........................................................3-7
3.5 Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions ...................................................................................................3-7
4.0 Reference Streams ............................................................... .................................................... 4-1
5.0 Project Site Wetlands .............................................................................................................. 5-1
t 5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................................................. ..........................................................5-1
6.0 Project Site Restoration Plan ..................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ................................. ..........................................................6-1
6.2 Design Criteria Selection for Stream Restoration ..................... ..........................................................6-1
' 6.3 Design Parameters ..................................................................... ..........................................................6-2
6
5
6.4 Sediment Transport ................................................................... -
..........................................................
6.5 In-Stream Structures ..6-6
6-8
..................................................................
6.6 Flood Modeling . ..
........................................................
6.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration ...................................... .......................................................... 6-9
7.0 Performance Criteria ......................................................... ..................................................... 7-1
7.1 Stream Monitoring .................................................................... ..........................................................7-1
' 7.2 Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................. ..........................................................7-2
7.3 Benthic Monitoring ................................................................... ..........................................................7-3

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE iii APRIL 30, 2008

' 7.4 Maintenance Issues ..............................................................................................................................7-3
7.5 Schedule/ Reporting ............................................................................................................................7-3
' 8.0 References .................................................................................................................................8-1

BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE iv
APRIL 30, 2008

List of Tables
Table ES.1 Logan Creek Restoration Overview
Table 2.1 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 2.2 Project Soil Type Characteristics
Table 2.3 Logan Creek Watershed Land Use/ Land Cover
Table 2.4 Species Under Federal Protection in Jackson County
Table 3.1 Representative Geomorphic Data for Logan Creek
Table 3.2 Particle Size Distribution for Logan Creek
Table 3.3 Logan Creek Reach Descriptions
Table 3.4 Stability Indicators - Logan Creek
Table 4.1 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Table 6.1 Project Design Stream Types and Rationale
Table 6.2 Design Parameters
Table 6.3 Proposed In-stream Structure Types
Table 6.4 Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species
Table 6.5 Proposed Seed Mixture Species
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGEv
APRIL 30, 2008

List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 5.1
Figure 6.1
Project Location Map
Watershed Basin Map
Project Soil Types
FEMA Floodplain Map
Project Reaches and Surveyed Cross-Section Locations
Simon Channel Evolution Model
NC Mountain Regional Curves with Project Cross-Section Data and Discharge
Design Discharge Value Plotted on Subset of Regional Curve Sites
Existing Wetlands Locations
Proposed Stream Design
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE vi
AF'hflL 3U, 4UUt5

1
1
1
List of Appendices
Appendix A Project Site Stream Classification Forms
Appendix B USFWS Concurrence
Appendix C SHPO & THPO Concurrence
Appendix D EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
Appendix E Existing Conditions Data
Appendix F Reference Reach Cross Section and Profile Data
Appendix G Cumulative Frequency Graphs of Logan Creek Sediment Samples
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE vii
array Ju, Lvua

1

1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1.1 Brief Project Description and Location
Baker proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve 8,131 linear feet (LF) of stream along Logan Creek and five
of its tributaries, in Jackson County, North Carolina. Included within the easement area to be preserved are
nine wetland areas totaling 1.71 acres.
The Logan Creek restoration site is located approximately three miles northeast of Cashiers in Jackson
County, North Carolina, as shown on Figure 1.1. The project site extends south from the confluence of Logan
Creek and an unnamed tributary downstream to immediately upstream of a culvert at US 64. Stream names
used in this report follow those used by the Division of Water Quality; however, locally Logan Creek is
known as West Fork Logan Creek and Right Prong Logan Creek is known only as Logan Creek. The site is
accessible from US 64 at the Lonesome Valley Company, Inc. development.
The Logan Creek watershed lies in the Savannah River Basin, within North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-13-02 and USGS hydrologic unit 03060101010020.
' The recent land use of the site has been open hay fields and forestry. Historically, the site was used for
pasture, timbering, trout farming and as a mink farm. Past land uses created conditions that today are causing
the degradation of on-site streams.
' Logan Creek through the project site is a "blue-line" stream, as shown on the USGS topographic quadrangle
for the site. Based on field evaluations using NCDWQ stream assessment protocols, all of the stream
channels proposed for restoration, enhancement, or preservation are perennial as shown in Appendix A.
1

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 1-1 MrruLou, ZWO
11
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Watershed Delineation ,
The Logan Creek site is located in the Savannah River Basin as illustrated in Figure 1.1. The project reach
watershed is delineated on Figure 2.1. The total drainage area for the entire project reach is 2.67 square miles

at the downstream end. The project begins at the confluence of Logan Creek, which has a drainage area of '
1.08 square miles, and Right Prong Logan Creek which has a drainage area of 1.0 square mile.
2.2 Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality '
NCDWQ designates surface water classifications for water bodies such as streams, rivers, and lakes.

Classifications define the best uses for these waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and drinking water supply). '
These classifications are associated with a set of water quality standards to protect their uses. All surface
waters in North Carolina must at least meet the standards for Class C (fishable/swimmable) waters. Other
primary classifications provide additional levels of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B) '
and drinking water supplies (WS). In addition to these primary classifications, supplemental classifications
are sometimes assigned to water bodies to protect special uses or values. Logan Creek [NCDWQ Index No.
3-13-2] has the primary classification Class C water and the supplemental classifications of Tr for trout waters '
and HQW for high quality waters. The Tr supplemental classification is intended to protect habitat for natural
trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. This classification primarily affects the quality of permitted
discharges and recognizes a 25 foot riparian buffer administered by the Division of Land Quality. The HQW t
supplemental classification is intended to preserve a high level of existing water quality that exceeds state
water quality standards. There are both wastewater treatment standards and development controls enforced
by NCDWQ on these streams. Logan Creek carries the HQW designation because it is a tributary to the

Horsepasture River which is designated as HQW. '
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils '
The project site lies within the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge physiographic province of western North
Carolina. According to the 1985 North Carolina Geological Survey Map and a 1 degree by 2 degree geologic
map of the Knoxville Quadrangle prepared by the USGS (Hadley, and Nelson, 1971, Map I-654), the project '
site is underlain by an intrusive igneous formation of quartz diorite and grandiorite that are middle Paleozoic
Era, late Devonian in age. This rock unit is described as gray or white, medium to coarse-grained, generally
foliated rock composed dominantly of plagioclase feldspars, muscovite, biotite, quartz, hornblende, '
plagioclase feldspars and xenocrysts.
This rock unit along with other rock types of the geographic area (amphibolite and biotite gneiss), weather to
form clay-rich saprolite, generally a soft, friable material that often contains relict structures and mineral '
assemblages from the parent rock material. Due to faster weathering rates on rock in topographically low
areas and increased erosion rates in topographically high areas, saprolite in the area tends to be thickest in
valley and small coves around Cashiers and thins out as the topography rises to hilltops and ridges. Additional '
soil characteristics of the site were determined using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Soil Survey data for Jackson County, along with preliminary on-site evaluations to determine any hydric soil
areas (USDA 1975). A map depicting the boundaries of each soil type is presented in Figure 2.2. There are '
four general soil types found within the project boundaries. A discussion of each soil type and its locations
given by the NRCS is presented in Table 2.1. Table 2.2 identifies characteristics of each soil series located on
the project site and will be referenced in conjunction with the soils descriptions to select appropriate seeding '
mixes and other vegetative cover.
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 2-1 APRIL 8, 2008
F7

J BEAR CREEK J
SERVOIR
r'
i
107 04-04-02
LTN2 1
' 04-03-01
-/ FRB1
Project Location
c
-
\ i (,, ,-_ •1 LAKE `e
TOXAWA
i
^i LJ
04-04-01 -i`;
LTN1
03-13-02
r?
SAV2
ar / < 03-13-01
SAV1 l ;
Counties
-- Fig 1.1 Project Location Map
NCDWQ Sub-basin
==
USGS Hydrologic Unit Logan Creek Stream Restoration
N
0 1 2 3 V-.,Qj
-_
AQW
Jackson County, NC Miles ?„ •,?;ten1 '
i
i

•'=n4_ ',r / fQ\/,i , f.' I;D ?\\..\, \?t\? 'Il ire 1??1I
Legend
Existing Alignment
y ane ie +?.....
Watershed Boundary
N
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Location!
Fig 2.1 Watershed Basin Map
Logan Creek Stream Restoration
r-;j,,

' Soils within the proposed stream restoration areas are primarily mapped as the Nikwasi series by the NRCS in
Jackson County. The Nikwasi fine sandy loam is found along the floodplain of Logan Creek and the lower
ends of the tributary valleys. The Whiteside-Tuckasegee complex is mapped along the upland Logan Creek
' Valley, upstream of the proposed restoration reach. The steep slopes along the edges of the downstream
Logan Creek valley, just upstream of US 64, are mapped as the Saunook gravelly loam. Soils along the UT5
valley are mapped as Cullowhee fine sandy loam. Bedrock was observed in a few isolated locations in the
' Logan Creek bed, and numerous outcroppings are visible along the valley walls. Generally, the depth to
bedrock appears to be at least three feet in the Logan Creek floodplain. In areas where shallow bedrock is
encountered, the restoration plan will incorporate this bedrock as in-situ grade control.

1

Table 2.1
Project Soil Ty pes and DescriptI011,
Description
77 odplain The Nikwasi series consists of poorly drained and very poorly
drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils on flood plains in
the Blue Ridge (MLRA 130). These soils formed in recent
alluvium consisting of loamy material that is moderately deep
to strata of sand, gravel, and/or cobbles. Slope ranges from 0 to
3 percent.
Whiteside- Upland valley The Whiteside series consists of very deep, moderately well
Tuckasegee drained, moderately permeable soils on colluvial toe slopes,
benches, and fans in coves in the Southern Appalachian
Mountains. These soils formed in colluvium and alluvium
derived from materials weathered from felsic to mafic
crystalline rocks such as granite, mica gneiss, and hornblende
gneiss. The Tuckasegee series consists of very deep, well
drained soils on gently sloping to very steep benches, foot
slopes, toe slopes, drainageways, and fans in coves in the
Southern Appalachian Mountains. These soils formed in
colluvium derived from materials weathered from igneous and
metamorphic crystalline rocks such as granite, mica gneiss,
hornblende gneiss, and schist.
Saunook The Saunook series consists of very deep, well drained,
moderately permeable soils on benches, fans, and toe slopes in
coves in the Blue Ridge (MLRA 130). They formed in
colluvium derived from materials weathered from felsic to
mafic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks. Slope ranges
from 2 to 60 percent.
Cullowhee Valley The Cullowhee series consists of somewhat poorly drained,
moderately rapidly permeable soils on flood plains in the
Southern Appalachian Mountains. They formed in recent
alluvium that is loamy in the upper part and is moderately deep
to sandy strata that contain more than 35 percent by volume
rock fragments. They are very deep to bedrock. Slope ranges
from 0 to 3 percent.
Note:
NRCS, USDA. Official Soil Series Descriptions
(http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi)
1 BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 2-2 APRIL 8, 2008

Table 2.2
ploiect Soil -1 Npe Characteristics
Series Erosion Erosion
Max % Clav on Factor Factor OINI %o;
Depth (in) Surface K T
Nikwasi Fine (NkA) 30" 11.50 0.20 4 10.00
Whiteside-Tuckasegee Complex >60" 16.00 0.24 5 9.50
(WtB)
Saunook Gravelly Loam (SaC) > 60" 13.50 0.24 5 6.50
Cullowhee Fine (CwA) 40" 11.50 0.20 3 6.50
Source:
NRCS, USDA. Official Soil Series Descriptions
(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ap p/WebsoilSurvey.aspx)
(http://soildatamart.nres.usda. cov/Default.aspx)
2.4 Historic Land Use and Development Trends

7

Except for low density residential development and portions of land in agricultural use, the Logan Creek
watershed is primarily forested. Less than 10% of land in the Logan Creek drainage is in development while '
approximately 87% remains forested as shown in Table 2.3. The Logan Creek drainage has experienced
varying degrees of agricultural and aquaculture development for the past 60 to 80 years. The Logan Creek
watershed was logged in the 1920's to 1940's as much of the southern Appalachians were at the time. Since '
then, portions of the project area have supported apple orchards and livestock as well as a trout hatchery and
mink farm. Currently the project site is being developed as an eco-friendly development. This includes large
lots and a significant amount of green-space. The developers are maintaining a 25 foot buffer on all streams
outside of those included in this project.
Table 2.3
1.?,??an Creek watershed Land Use Land ('ovcr
Land Use Category' Area (acres) Percent Area
Streams/Wetlands 6.23 <I% (.40)
Low Density Residential 40.26 2.4%
High Density Residential .92 <1% (.05)
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay 32.02 1.9%
Pasture Lands 78.46 4.6%
Grasslands 12.78 <1% (.80)
Forested:
Deciduous Forest 1293.77 76%
Evergreen Forest 135.36 8%
Mixed Forest 39.99 2.4%
Shrub/Scrub 57.55 3.4%
Note:
1. The above was gathered from 2001 U.S. Geological Survey land cover data.
Source: {tltp://seamle.rs.us;;.c.?ov/
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 2-3 APRIL 8, 20U8

r
-. _. ARAI
Soils
r
ll
fin
sand
loam
hi
E
C
C EdC
w PwE
y
ers g
ave
e
y
a
,
as
lal CdC, Chandler gravelly fine sandy loarr % - CnE
x. `-- r -
Illj CdD, Chandler gravelly fine sandy can
l
fi
l EdF E?E
y
ne sandy
oarn
Cd E, Chandler gravel
CeD. Chandler gravelly Erie sandy loam

;
EdE '
CnC, Chestnut-Edneyville comple<
CnE, Chestnut-Edneyville comple, v4`
M CpD, Cleveland-Chestnut-Rock outcrop complex
llll
CpF, Cleveland-Chestnut-Rock outcrop cr nplex -
s
OP
® Cs E, Cullasaja very cobbly fine sandy loam .
CuD, Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complar
CWA, Cullowhee fine sandy loam
- EdC, Edneyville-Chestnut complex y .,?.
- Ed D, Edneyville-Chestnut complex ITT
Tl. Ed E, Edneyville-Chestnut complex ?+.
v, Ed F, Edneyville-Chestnut complex
XF•
7-1 NSA, Nikwasi fine sandy loam n.,`
PwE, Plott fine sandy loam
RkF, Rock outcrop-Cleveland complex
- Sac, Saunook gravelly loam .?
M SvB, Statler loam
TwC, Tuckasegee-Whiteside complex
M W, Water
- WtB, Whiteside-Tuckasegee complex

0 1,000 2,000 -

Feet asV . r r? CnF r
---_ -
Fig 2.2 Project Soils Types
Logan Creek Stream Restoration r_j
I ,-te 11

F

I

2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining as a result of either natural forces or their own
difficulties in competing with humans for resources. Plants and animals with a federal classification of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected
under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Seven species that
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) lists under federal protection for Jackson County as of
March 1, 2007 are listed in Table 2.4. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of
the species under federal protection follows in Table 2.4, along with a conclusion regarding potential project
impact.
Table 2.4 Species Under Federal Protection in Jackson County
Family Scientific Name Common Federal State ' Habitat Present /
Name Status Status Biological Conclusion
Vertebrates
Clemmys Bog Turtle T(S/A) N/A Yes/No effect
Emydidae muhlenbergii
Carolina
Glaucomys sabrinus Northern Flying
Sciuridae coloratus Squirrel E E No/No effect
Indiana Myotis
Vespertilionidae Mvotis sodalit (bat) E E No/No effect
Invertebrates
Alasmidonta Appalachain
Unionidae raveneliana elktoe E E No/No effect
Plants
Small whorled
Orchidaceae Isotoria medeoloides pogonia T E Yes/No effect
Liliaceae Helonias bullata Swamp ink T T-SC Yes/No effect
Lichen
Rock Gnome
Cladoniaceae Gymnoderma lineare. Lichen E T No/No effect
Notes:
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or fauna is
determined to be in jeopardy.
SC A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under
regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the
Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants).
T Threatened
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance. A species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance
with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened
-1 - not cnhi,-rt to Qertinn 7 consultation.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was most recently contacted August 1, 2006 regarding
protected species on the project site. A response was received February 21, 2007 from the USFWS
concurring with a finding of "no effect" for project impacts to federally listed species located in Jackson
County. As a precautionary measure, Baker will consider the effects of construction activities on species
listed in Table 2.4 and take reasonable measures to avoid direct and indirect impacts during the project. A
copy of the correspondence from USFWS is included in Appendix B.
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 2-4 hrnll o,

2.5.1 Federally Protected Vertebrates
2.5.1.1 Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog Turtle)
The Bog Turtle is among the smallest turtles of North America at only 3-4.5 inches in length and '
with an average weight of 4 ounces. Its shell is light brown to ebony in color and it has a notable
bright orange, yellow or red blotch on each side of its head. The bog turtle's preferred habitat in
the southern Appalachians include sphagnum bogs, slowly drained swamps, and mucky, slow '
moving spring-fed streams in meadows and pastures that are typically less than 4 acres in size.
Suitable habitat was found for the bog turtle in the larger wetland areas located adjacent to Logan
Creek. However, no examples of this species were observed during pedestrian surveys of the site '
on May 18 and 24, 2005 and on September 28, 2005
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Project design for Logan Creek will be such that minimal land disturbing activities will take place '
in the wetland areas identified. By avoiding adverse impacts to potential habitat to the greatest
extent possible, and referencing a lack of bog turtle observations, a "no effect" determination was
assigned. '
2.5.1.2 Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel)
The Carolina northern flying squirrel is a small nocturnal gliding mammal some 260 to 305 '
millimeters (10 to 12 inches) in total length and 95-140 grams (3-5 ounces) in weight. It
possesses a long, broad, flattened tail (80 percent of head and body length), prominent eyes, and
dense, silky fur. The broad tail and folds of skin between the wrist and ankle form the '
aerodynamic surface used for gliding. Adults are gray with a brownish, tan, or reddish wash on
the back, and grayish white or buffy white ventrally. Juveniles have uniform dark, state-gray
backs, and off-white undersides. The northern flying squirrel can be distinguished from the

southern flying squirrel by its larger size; the gray base of its ventral hairs as opposed to a white '
base in the southern species; the relatively longer upper tooth row; and the short, stout baculum
(penis bone) of the males. '
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Carolina northern flying squirrel prefers the ecotone between coniferous and mature northern
hardwood forests usually above 4,500 feet. The project area consists of floodplain with '
maximum elevations of approximately 3,500 feet. Due to the lack of suitable habitat on the
project site, a "no effect" determination was made for the Carolina northern flying squirrel.
2.5.1.3 Myotis sodalis (Indiana Myotis) '
The Indiana bat is 3.5 inches long, with mouse-like ears, plain nose, dull, grayish fur on the back,
and lighter, cinnamon-brown fur on the belly. Its "wingspread" ranges from 9.5 to 10.5 inches. '
From early October until late March and April, Indiana bats hibernate in large clusters of
hundreds or even thousands in limestone caves and abandoned mines, usually near water. During
summer, females establish maternity colonies of two dozen to several hundred under the loose '
bark of dead and dying trees or shaggy-barked live trees, such as the shagbark hickory. Hollows
in live or dead trees are also used. Most roost trees are usually exposed to the sun and are near
water. Males and non-reproductive females typically roost singly or in small groups. Roost trees '
can be found within riparian areas, bottomland hardwoods, and upland hardwoods (Nature Serve
Explorer, 2006).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect '
Riparian corridors adjacent to Logan Creek may provide suitable summer foraging habitat for the
Indiana bat; however USFWS records indicate that Jackson County N.C. records of this species
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 2-5 APRIL 8, 2008

h
' have all been winter records. No winter hibernation habitat was observed on the project site.
Therefore a "no effect" determination was made.
' 2.5.2 Federally Protected Invertebrates
2.5.2.1 Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachain Elktoe)
The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, but not fragile, kidney-shaped shell, reaching up to about 3.2
inches in length, 1.4 inches in height, and one inch in width (Clarke 1981). Like other freshwater
mussels, the Appalachian elktoe feeds by filtering food particles from the water column. The
specific food habits of the species are unknown, but other freshwater mussels have been
' documented to feed on detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton (Churchill and Lewis
1924). The mussel's life span is unknown.
' Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Appalachian elktoe prefers morphologically stable stream reaches with no silt accumulation
or heavily shifting substrate, which does not currently exist on the site. Given the degraded
' conditions on Logan Creek a "no effect" determination was made.
2.5.3 Federally Protected Plants
' 2.5.3.1 Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia)
Small whorled pogonia is a small, perennial member of the Orchidaceae. These plants arise from
long slender roots, with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or six light green leaves. The
' single flower is approximately one. inch long, with yellowish-green to white petals and three
longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring, from mid-May to mid-June. Populations
of this plant are reported to have extended periods of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This
' small spring ephemeral orchid is not observable outside of the spring growing season. When not
in flower, young plants of Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana) also resemble small
whorled pogonia; however, the hollow stout stem of Isotria separates it from the genus Medeola,
' which has a solid, more slender stem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service County Listing, 2007).
Small whorled pogonia may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically grows in
open, dry, deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soil. It also grows in rich, mesic
' woods in association with white pine and rhododendron.
The primary threat to small whorled pogonia is habitat destruction resulting from residential or
commercial development or forestry. Other threats, such as recreational use of habitat and
inadvertent damage from research activities, have also been identified.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
' Second-Third growth upland forest in the vicinity of the project area was found to contain
suitable habitat for the small whorled pogonia. However, no small whorled pogonia was
observed during on-site surveys conducted May 18, and May 24, 2005. Lack of observations as
well as limited disturbance activities within the habitat area resulted in a "no effect"
determination.
' 2.5.3.2 Helonias bullata (Swamp Pink)
A perennial, the Swamp Pink usually is one of the first wildflowers to bloom in the spring. The
plant usually blooms from March to May. Its fragrant flowers are pink and occur in a cluster of
30 to 50. Its dark evergreen, lance-shaped, and parallel-veined leaves form a basal rosette which
arises from a stout, hollow stem. This stem can grow from a height of 2 to 9 decimeters during
flowering, and to 1.5 meters during seed maturation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). The
' plant's stout rootstock has many fibrous rootlets. During the winter, the leaves often turn reddish
' BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 2-6 APRIL 8, 2008

brown and will lie flat on, or slightly raised, from the ground. These winter leaves are often '
hidden by leaf litter, but a visible large button, in the center of the leaves, represents next season's
flowerhead. The plant produces three-lobed fruit of an inverted heart shape. Each fruit has many
ovules; each ovule opens into six lobes which release linear shaped seeds with appendages on '
both ends.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Larger wetland areas adjacent to Logan Creek contain suitable habitat for swamp pink. However,
no species were located during on-site surveys conducted May 18 and May 24, 2005. In addition,
no ground disturbing activities will occur in these wetlands areas. Therefore, a "no effect" '
determination was issued.
2.5.4 Federally Protected Lichen
2.5.4.1 Gymnoderma lineare (Rock Gnome Lichen) '
Rock Gnome Lichen grows in dense colonies of narrow straps (squamules) that appear a bluish- '
grey on the surface and a shiny white on the lower surface. The squamules are about 1 millimeter
across near the tip, tapering to the blackened base, sparingly and subdichotomously branched, and
generally about 1 to 2 centimeters (.39 to .79 inches) long, although they can vary somewhat in
length, depending upon environmental factors. Flowering occurs between July to September; '
fruiting bodies are located at the tips of the squamules and are also black. The squamules are
nearly parallel to the rock surface, with the tips curling away from the rock, in a near perpendicular
orientation to the rock surface. '
The rock gnome lichen is endemic to the southern Appalachian Mountains of North
Carolina and Tennessee, where it is limited to 32 populations. Only seven of the remaining 32 '
populations cover an area larger than 2 square meters (2.4 square yards). Most populations are I
meter (3.3 feet) or less in size.
Rock gnome lichen habitat is located around humid, high elevation rock outcrops or vertical cliff ,
faces or in rock outcrops in humid gorges at lower elevations. Most populations occur above an
elevation of 1,524 meters (5,000 feet).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project area is in a broad valley setting of mixed meadows and forested areas and does not '
meet the habitat criteria for the rock gnome lichen. A Biological Conclusion of No Effect is
expected from the proposed project construction.
2.6 Cultural Resources '
A letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians' Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), August 1, 2006, requesting a review and
comment for the potential of cultural resources in the vicinity of the Logan Creek restoration site. A response '
was received on August 30, 2006, from the SHPO with a recommendation that a comprehensive survey be
conducted due to the project site landscape and proximity to two previously recorded archaeological sites and
one architectural site. The THPO also submitted a letter requesting they be contacted for further consultation '
should further cultural resources data be obtained for the project site. Subsequently, an archaeological survey
was completed by Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. in which no significant archeological or
architectural resources were located within the project boundaries. Camp Merrie Woode, which is listed on
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 2-7 APRIL 8, 2008

' the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), is located approximately 1.6 km from the Logan Creek
project area. However no adverse impacts to the camp are anticipated from the project. On December 1, 2006,
the archaeological survey report was submitted to the SHPO and THPO for review. On January 12, 2007,
' Baker received a letter from the SHPO concurring with findings from the archaeological survey that no
further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. The THPO submitted a
concurrence letter on January 24, 2007. A copy of the SHPO and THPO correspondence is included in
Appendix C.
2.7 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
' An EDR Transaction Screen Map Report that identifies and maps real or potential hazardous environmental
sites within the distance required by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Transaction
Screen Process (E 1528) was prepared for the site. A copy of the report with an overview map is included in
' Appendix D. The overall environmental risk for this site was determined to be low. Environmental sites
including Superfund (National Priorities List, NPL); hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities;
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System
' (CERCLIS); suspect state hazardous waste, solid waste or landfill facilities; or leaking underground storage
tanks were not identified by the report in the proposed project area. During field data collection, there was no
evidence of these sites in the proposed project vicinity, and conversations with landowners did not reveal any
further knowledge of hazardous environmental sites in the area.
2.8 Potential Constraints
'
' Baker assessed the Logan Creek project site in regards to potential site constraints. No fatal flaws have been
identified during project design development.
2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
' Baker has obtained a conservation easement from Cow Rock Mountain, Inc., for the Logan Creek
project area. The easement has been approved by the N. C. State Property Office (SPO) and
recorded at the Jackson County Courthouse. Final copies of the easement and plat have been
provided to SPO and to EEP. The easement will allow Baker to proceed with the restoration
project and restricts the land use in perpetuity. The landowner will retain the right to establish and
' maintain a trail for non-motorized use that will pass through the easement in a few areas. The trail
base will be maintained with a natural, pervious material such as mulch and shall conform to
easement guidelines. The easement area lost to this trial is compensated for by the fact that the
' easement will average approximately 45 feet in width.
The site can be accessed for construction and post-restoration monitoring. Construction access and
' staging areas will be identified during final design.
2.8.2 Utilities
No utility easements are present within the conservation easement. There are at least two 100 foot
' diameter, circular easements that protect wells that adjoin the proposed easement lines. These will
not infringe on the conservation easement since for the most part these easement areas will be
maintained in a natural condition. There is one existing waterline pipe that crosses the stream at the
' upstream end of the project reach, in the area of the pond. This waterline was part of the old trout
hatchery infrastructure and is no longer functioning. It will be removed during construction.
' 2.8.3 Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplain Characterization
The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Jackson County, NC, (Panel Number
3702820175C) indicates that the project is located within a regulatory floodplain, zone A. Figure
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 2-8 APRIL 30, 2008

2.3 illustrates the FEMA mapping near the site. No flood study is planned as a part of this project '
and we don't anticipate any change to the present flood elevations as a result of this project. Baker
will perform hydraulic modeling of the final design to compare pre and post-project flood
elevations, with results to be placed in the project file for future reference. The county floodplain '
manager will be contacted and advised of this project.
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 2-9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APRIL 30, 2008
U
L?N
Y ? O N
? U C u
=?agE

I N
F
` I W a
? ? Q Q a = o C OO ?
E...
O
, 6 ?
uG?o
g?ZU
W ?
^
C
zL = W
S F-? H5 i_ _ pNp h
a ._ W G H Q y
OI
" S y uNj?11
?a??n
.

s.

z °o
N
CD

o,;gsW
P
a
oC0 Up, o

?
? - - 16
?r

O t o
vE
°
o s
e?Eaa
I
U
jj
`_~ 1 y

{
W W
?pN N O
o
=c_. IV

z0 Legend
Project Stream
z
Fig 2.3 FEMA Floodplain Map
Logan Creek Stream Restoration
r?
[?cx?system

' 3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
u
0
1

I

u

3.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification
Baker performed representative longitudinal profile and cross-section surveys of the existing stream reaches
to assess the current condition and overall stability of the channels. Baker also collected substrate samples to
characterize stream sediments. Figure 3.1 illustrates the locations of cross-section surveys on the project
reaches. The following sections of this report summarize the survey results for the mainstem reaches.
Surveyed cross sections and profiles are included in Appendix E. Results of sediment sampling and analysis
are included in Appendix G.
3.1.1 Logan Creek Mainstem
Table 3.1 summarizes the geomorphic parameters of the mainstem downstream of the confluence
with Right Prong Logan Creek. In general, the bedform diversity of Logan Creek is fair with some
pool habitat in existing meanders and around woody debris. Most pools are scour features associated
with woody debris laying over or in the channel and debris buried in the substrate. Most of the
stream bed is shallow and is best described as a riffle with a few runs. Low velocity areas of the
channel are primarily composed of large sand particles and small gravel. Higher velocity pools and
runs have some small cobble and gravel. The project reach can be described as a gravel bed stream
based on stream bed sampling at Logan Creek. Table 3.2 lists substrate data.
Logan Creek flows through a locally broad, alluvial floodplain characteristic of a Rosgen Valley Type
VIII. Alluvial terraces typically present in a Valley Type VIII are low elevation rises and are
observed in a few places along Logan Creek; however historic agricultural manipulation of the
floodplain has likely altered the topography. The overall valley slope is 0.0045 ft/ft.
Within the project limits, Logan Creek is predominately classified as a Rosgen stream type C4.
However, some areas of the channel demonstrate Rosgen stream type E4 characteristics and indicate
that the stream either was an E in the past or is evolving into this stream type. Existing natural and
anthropogenic impacts have caused a shift away from the more stable E channel.
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 3-1 APRIL 8, 2008
Table 3.1
resentative Geomo hic Data for Logan Creek -Stream Channel Classification Level
Representative Geomorphic 11
Paralmetea ; Value rai#s
Reach 2.1K82 Reach 2 , S4 Reach 2, xS Itetteh 3, :K59
c,.,-?> n cs 2u+2S Sta. 30+0(f Sta: 46+05
Feature Type Riffle Run Riffle Pool
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 38.7 36.0 34.9 80.96 Feet
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) 1.51 1.55 1.56 1.6 Feet
Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf) 58.4 55.8 54.2 55.8 Sq. ft.
Width/Depth Ratio (W/D ratio) 25.7 23.2 22.4 23.2
Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) 3.42 2.94 2.3 2.9 Feet
Floodprone Area Width (W f0a) >150 122 74.0 >150 Feet
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) >5 3.4 2.12 >5
Bank Height Ratio (BHR) 1.45 1.6 1.86 1.1
Water Surface Slope (S) .0032 .0012 .0026 .0002 Feet per foot
Channel Sinuosity (K) 1.16 1.25 1.25 1.60
Rosgen Stream Type C4 C4 C4 C4
Table 3.2
Particle Size Distribution from different sediment samples of Logan Creek
Channel materials
Particle
Size
(mm)
Pebble
Count

Pavemgnt

Sub avement.-
Bar Bulls
Sam le
DlO U.h 16.8 0.6 0.7
D35 = 5.8 19.9 2.1 2.0
D50 = 12.4 32.2 8.1 2.5
D84 = 35.4 43.0 19.8 10.5
D95 = 169.6 54.2 33.3 19.5
D100 = > 2048 45 - 64 52.0 16 - 22.6
The mainstem project reach of Logan Creek between the confluence with Right Prong Logan Creek
and US 64 has been divided into three reaches which are described in Table 3.3. Reach divisions
were based on an assessment of need and the proposed actions being either Restoration or
Enhancement I. Stationing is based on the proposed channel and does not align with the existing
thalweg. In the following description reference is made to stationing on the proposed alignment and
locations on the existing channel are approximate.
Logan Creek above the confluence with Right Prong Logan Creek is in good condition. This section
has a thick forest buffer and minimal instability. Future development by Lonesome Valley is planned
for this watershed and could impact the existing high quality. However, they are committed to
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 3-2 APRIL 8, 2008
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Logan Creek 76 i'•J
S ? r r
WA s.t UT 1 e' ?" ?'??? "`?.
t (?y?
41
f .1
,J Kel- J,
Ali-
.r ;`}`"'".=?:. .+-.•?""'q?.?' UT3
0, 4b
UT4 l ? ? +` "t! c
left.
w f _ r* t?. _•i '?. `lf'S ?r• *i?j? r
fir'' ` f?r• ? •. X ?A ?r„ j ?^'i '?i? ?=?± a"!? ..??'. ?:
F, -C
ALML4 X.6
4P, 41
r * i
lip:
Ike
a v? 1 'tom b/? iV * ve
ky_- a •?
?.? 4 ~` W t s a EK }? j r ' i*7 »
0 .7
a 'A
A
•? - A.. `l ifs f1., '?`
1- Proposed Design
Fig 3.1 Project Reaches
Easement
Cross-Sections and Surveyed Cross-Sections
Project Reaches Logan Creek Stream Restoration
." N
0 250 500 Feet
4101 ILI
Pro'ect Location

I
I

1

7

maintaining the 25 foot buffer in a natural condition and areas within the project limits will have a 30
foot buffer.
Table 3.3
Logan Creek mainstem Reach Descriptions
Length * t?? at`
(I } Uownstreat?t
End,Qf.Reach
} (squire miles)
Reach 1 Sta. 0+00 to 4+50 450 2.18
Reach 2 Sta. 4+50 to 35+90 3,140 2.42
Reach 3 Sta. 36+50 to 46+50 1,000 2.67
Total Existing Stream Length 4,590
*Reach lengths are approximate and based on proposed alignment.
3.1.1.1 Reach 1
Reach 1 begins at the confluence of Logan Creek and Right Prong Logan Creek and extends
downstream to station 4+50. The right bank is forested down to station 2+50 were a large
wetland area drains into Logan Creek. The delineated wetland boundaries are 20 to 40 feet
away from the top of the bank, except for the channel through which the wetland drains. On
the left bank is a large pond and the stream bank between 1+75 and 2+25 is the emergency
spillway for the pond. At this point a past bank slump has caused a diversion of the stream
flow into the toe of the bank at the emergency overflow section. The left bank below the
pond is vegetated by shrubs and herbaceous species with a few trees. The reach is unusually
straight and may have been straightened in the past to develop the trout hatchery facility
which was in the area of the pond. This reach is being impacted by beavers and a number of
beaver dams have been built in this reach over the past few years. This has caused the
channel to erode in a number of places, resulting in an over-wide condition and the channel
continues to be diverted into the bank between stations 4+50 and 5+10. The slope over this
reach is .0029.
3.1.1.2 Reach 2
Reach 2 extends approximately 3,140 LF downstream from the end of Reach I at station
4+50 to station 35+90. The slope across this reach is steeper than the other two reaches at
0.0040 ft/ft. The steepest slope (.0064 ft/ft) within the reach is across the upper 800 LF. This
relative steepness reflects a profile of debris jams, over-widening and aggradation punctuated
by short, steep drops at the downstream ends of the debris jams. The banks are eroding
between station 4+50 and 7+75. In part this is due to an unstable pattern and over-wide
cross-section, and these conditions are exacerbated by log jams and past beaver activity.
Similar problems are also causing degradation and bank erosion between stations 9+00 and
13+00. Within this reach the channel is exceptionally over-wide and a large log jam has
formed at approximately station 12+20. This appears to back water up during storm flows
causing the channel to aggrade. Much of the woody debris associated with these blockages is
rhododendron branches that have fallen in or entire plants that have been washed out of the
bank. Between station 7+00 and 13+00 rhododendron plants are so thick that they have
limited germination of tree species. Because rhododendrons are not deeply rooted and shade
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 3-3

out herbaceous species, they do not stabilize the stream bank and allow for rapid erosion '
during storm flows.
Beginning at approximately station 13+00 the right bank is a grass meadow with a few trees.
The left bank continues to have thick rhododendron down to station 26+00 where it is also a '
grassed meadow with a few trees along the edge of the stream. At two sites along this reach
(Station 15+25 and 18+50) the stream is overly sinuous. In each of these cases the stream is
flowing up-valley, resulting in excessive erosion and setting up an avulsion situation. '
Between stations 21+50 and 29+50 the channel appears to be straighter than one would
expect given the low slope. It may be that in the past, the stream was straightened over this
length to increase farming opportunities in the adjoining fields. Just downstream of station

30+50 (on existing channel) the existing channel flows into and along a steep, eroding right ,
bank. Downstream of this bank the channel is a long riffle to the end of Reach 2 at station
35+90. The channel bed particle size through this reach is similar to the reach wide

description in Section 3.1.1; however, there are areas within this reach were bedrock is ,
exposed. Four unnamed tributaries (UT2 through UT5) enter Logan Creek along this reach.
3.1.1.3 Reach 3 t
Reach 3 extends 1,000 LF downstream from the end of Reach 2 and ends at station 46+50,
just above a culvert crossing under US64. The slope of this reach is the lowest of the three
h
reaches at.0021. This relative flatness appears to be related to logjams through the reac '
that have caused aggradation of the stream bed. Sand is the primary particle size in this
reach, though gravel and bedrock are present. Aggradation appears to have caused the bed to
rise and bank heights to lower. Thick stands of rhododendron are present at two locations '
along this reach but in general the vegetation of this reach is more diverse than what is seen
upstream. Bank erosion is a problem between station 39+00 and 40+50 due to a logjam
diverting water into the bank and in the area of station 41+75 where the channel meanders ,
against a steep bank. Between stations 40+25 and 45+75 the channel becomes over-wide in
three different locations. This appears to be associated with logjams that have caused
erosion of the banks. In these areas the water is very shallow and provides little habitat value.

Between station 35+90 and 36+50 an area has been excluded from the easement for a bridged ,
stream crossing that spans the channel. The largest tributary within the project reach (UT6)
enters Logan Creek at station 40+50.
3.1.1.4 Logan Creek Upstream of Station 0+00 '
Approximately 1,550 linear feet of Logan Creek upstream of station 0+00 will be included in
the project. These reach is heavily forested and has not been disturbed by past development.
The channel bed is composed of gravel and small cobble and has good aquatic habitat. Thirty '
foot buffers have been established along this entire reach within the conservation easement.
3.1.1.5 Unnamed Tributaries
Along the project reach near stations 3+75, 8+50, 16+00, 20+75 and 40+50 five unnamed
tributaries enter Logan Creek. These tributaries range in drainage area size from 0.025 sq. '
mi. to 0.20 sq. mi and range in length within the easement from 65 LF to 975 LF. All of
these tributaries are less than 3 feet in bankfull width but all are perennial within the project
area and all have bed material of silt or sand and are well forested

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 3-4 APRIL 8, 2008

' 3.2 Channel Stability Assessment
A naturally stable stream must be able to transport the sediment load supplied by its watershed while
maintaining dimension, pattern, and profile over time so that it does not degrade or aggrade (Rosgen, 1994).
Stable streams migrate across alluvial landscapes slowly, over long periods, while maintaining their form and
function. Instability occurs when scouring causes the channel to incise (degrade) or excessive deposition
causes the channel bed to rise (aggrade). A generalized relationship of stream stability was proposed by Lane
' (1955) that states the product of sediment load and sediment size is proportional to the product of stream
slope and discharge, or stream power. A change in any one of these variables causes a rapid physical
adjustment in the stream channel.
' A common sequence of physical adjustments has been observed in many streams following disturbance. This
adjustment process is often referred to as channel evolution. Disturbance can result from channelization,
increase in runoff due to build-out in the watershed, removal of streamside vegetation, and other changes that
' negatively affect stream stability. All of these disturbances occur in both urban and rural environments.
Several models have been used to describe this process of physical adjustment for a stream. The Simon
(1989) Channel Evolution Model characterizes evolution in six steps, including:
' 1. sinuous, pre-modified
2. Channelized
3. Degradation
4. Degradation and widening
5. Aggradation and widening
' 6. Quasi-equilibrium.
Figure 3.2 illustrates the six steps of the Simon Channel Evolution Model.
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well-vegetated stream that interacts frequently with
its floodplain is disturbed. Disturbance commonly results in an increase in stream power that causes
degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955). Incision eventually leads to over-steepening
of the banks and, when critical bank heights are exceeded, the banks begin to fail and mass wasting of soil
' and rock leads to channel widening. Incision and widening continue moving upstream in the form of a head-
cut. Eventually the mass wasting slows, and the stream begins to aggrade. A new, low-flow channel begins
to form in the sediment deposits. By the end of the evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension,
pattern, and profile similar to those of undisturbed channels forms in the deposited alluvium. The new
channel is at a lower elevation than its original form, with a new floodplain constructed of alluvial material
(FISRWG, 1998).
' The mainstem channel within the project area is a perennial stream with sections that appear to have been
channelized in the past. Other sections of the stream flow through forest areas that were probably clear cut in
the past, allowing thick stands of pioneering rhododendron to become established and to limit the density of
' other woody species. This watershed carries a high load of large grained sand and small gravels. The channel
has a number of reaches within the forested sections that are impacted by debris jams that have caused erosion
and channel over-widening. The straightened sections are eroding banks in order to reestablish a stable
' pattern of meandering. Some stable cross-sections within the project reach indicate that when deeply rooted
vegetation is allowed to grow along the banks the stream takes on characteristics of an E channel. Table 3.4
summarizes the geomorphic parameters related to channel stability.

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 3-5 APRIL 8, 2008
Table 3.4
Stability Indicator, - I (1,,Nm Crccl:
Parameter °"
XS2
Sta. 0+30 XS4
Sta. 25+50 XS5
Sta. 28+00
Stream Type C C C
Riparian Vegetation Wide buffer of mature
rhododendron plants with
some mature trees scattered
within the stand on the left
bank. On the right bank is a
thin forest of mixed trees,
shrubs and herbaceous veg. Wide buffer of mature
rhododendron plants with
some mature trees scattered
within the stand on the left
bank. The right bank has only
fescue grass and this is
mowed. The right and left banks
are fields of fescue grass
that is mowed. There are
a few scattered trees on
each bank.
Channel Dimension
Bankfull Area (SF) 58.4 55.8 54.2
Width/Depth Ratio 25.7 23.2 22.4
Channel Pattern
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 1.7 1.7
Sinuosity 1.16 1.25 1.25
Vertical Stability
Bank Height Ratio (BHR) 1.45 1.6 1.86
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) >5.0 3.4 2.12
Evolution Scenario E-G-F-C-E E-G-F-C-E E-G-F-C-E
Simon Evolution Stage' V IV IV
Notes:
1. Simon Channel Evolution see Figure 3.2.
3.3 Bankfull Verification
Baker applied several methods to verify the bankfull stage and discharge of the restoration reach of Logan '
Creek. Field-identified physical indicators were collected during the topographic survey; these indicators
were used in conjunction with hydraulic modeling and discharge information from regional curve data and the '
USGS rural regression equations to evaluate bankfull estimates for consistency and accuracy.

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 3-6 APRIL 8, 2008

I

I

Class I. Sinuous, Premodified he = critical bank height
h<hc
= direction of bank or
h bed movement
Class 11. Channelized Class Ill. Degradation Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h<hc h<hc h>hc
floodplain terrace
h
h Ih
slumped material
Class V. Aggradation and Widening Class VI. Quasi Equilibrium
h>hc h<hc .
terrace terrace
h
j slumped
material
aggraded material
Class I Class III
bank
bankfull _

aggraded material
primary Class IV
nickpoint
top bank Class V
precursor 4.7
Class VI
mckpoint ' direction of IpTI
secondary
nickpoint
oversteepened reach ,r aggradation zone aggraded material
Source: Simon, 1989; US Army Corps of Engineers, 1990.
Fig. 7.14 - Channel evolution model..
In Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10!98.
Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWGx15 Federal agencies ofthe US).
Source: Simon, 1989
Figure 3.2
Simon Channel Evolution Model
Logan Creek Restoration Plan

NC Rural Mountain Regional Curve
1000 --- - - - - ---- -- -- - - ---
•
•
•
•
U.
0000
Cr
N
V
10
W
L
Q
U 100 00 0.
w
CO
x
Y --- I
c -•
?a
m -
Logan Creek Points.
i
10
1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (Sq. mi)
y = 22.77x' .17
R20.88 =
Figure 3.3 A plot of bankfull indicators at Logan Creek relative to the North Carolina Mountain
Regional Curve.

Drainage Area Sq Mi Q
(cfs)
Gage #
Description

2.6
264
- LOGAN CK 2-YR USGS
REGRESSION EQUATION
2.6 160 - LOGAN CK DESIGN Q
6.5 356 Reference Reach Upper Mitchell River (Headwaters)
7.18 253.7 0214253830 Norwood Creek near Troutman, NC
9.6 507.2 02121180 North Pott's Creek near Linwood, NC

15.5
655.3
02101800 Tick Creek near Mt. Vernon Springs,
NC

31.8
1041
02144000 Long Creek Gage near Bessemer
City
42.8 2236 02114450 Little Yadkin River at Dalton, NC
Bankfull geometric data, and its source, plotted on the mini-curve below.
Mini-Curve NC Mtn-Pied Regional Data
10000
USGS 2-Yr Logan Ck
1000 -- --- -
02 •
100 ---
Logan Design
10
1
1 10 100
Drainage Area (sq mi)
Figure 3.4. Mini-Curve Data from Mountain and Piedmont Streams with Logan Creek
Data Included

' Bankfull indicators on the mainstem channel were identified in the field; indicators include a break in slope,
an intermittent flat depositional feature, and a consistent scour line. Depth and area measurements of stable
cross-sections with bankfull indicators were compared to regional curve data to verify the quality of the
' indicators. Surveyed cross sections with bankfull indicators were plotted on the regional curve yielding
estimates of cross-sectional area shown in Figure 3.3. Logan Creek data points plotted on or near the North
Carolina Mountain Rural Regional Curve (Harman et al, 2000); indicating that the bankfull stage selected in
t the field was comparable with that of other Mountain streams of similar drainage area.
Using cross-sections extracted from the detailed topographic survey of the stream and floodplain, Baker
prepared a HEC-RAS hydraulic model (US Army Corps of Engineers 2002) with cross-sections spaced every
' 20 to 40 feet. Water surface elevations in the riffle and run cross-sections were used to determine which
discharge most consistently hit bankfull indicators throughout the project reach. Pool sections were excluded
from the analysis because enlarged cross-sectional area typical of pools would overestimate conveyance area
in the channel. This method was effective in determining a small range of bankfull discharges that would
' serve for choosing a reliable "effective" discharge for design.
For comparison and verification, a curve of the most geographically- and size- relevant regional curve data
' was used to create a mini-curve for discharge. The chosen design value and the 2-year USGS rural regression
flow were plotted with the mini-curve in Figure 3.4.
In accordance with observed bankfull recurrence intervals between 1-2 years (and commonly in the 1.2-1.5
' year range), the 2-year USGS flow plots just above the mini-curve. Furthermore, the design flow rate plots
well with existing regional curve data providing collaborative evidence for better confidence in the methods
used.
' 3.4 Discharge
Due to lack of gage data on Logan Creek, exhaustive efforts were made in an attempt to determine an
' appropriate design discharge. The strongest evidence came from HEC-RAS modeling which was produced
from the existing conditions survey data. This data was used to create a surface model in AutoCAD, from
which cross-sections were exported to HEC-RAS at intervals of 20 to 40 feet. Appropriate Manning's n
' values, slopes, and other model conditions were applied to provide a reliable backwater model. Flow rates,
including the USGS regression flows, NC regional curve flow rates, and regional normalized flow duration
curve flows from USGS gages in adjacent and regionally relevant gages, were modeled in HEC-RAS in order
' to assess what flow or flows produce flooding or inundation of the top of the bank and/or other floodplain
formation (bankfull) features such as benches in stable or stabilizing sections of the project reach.
Since the project is located in an area of extremely high rainfall with significant fluctuations both within
' basins and between adjacent basins in the region, the HEC-RAS model was able to provide confidence in the
design discharge that could not otherwise be achieved. We estimate the design bankfull discharge
downstream of the confluence at the uppermost end of the restoration reach to be 180 cfs. Despite an increase
' in drainage area from the Right Prong Logan Creek confluence to the end of the project, this discharge
consistently hit bankfull indicators and the top of the bank in stable areas throughout the restoration reach.
This is thought to be a result of the diffuse nature of the flow paths and high occurrence of wetlands in this
' lower portion of the valley. As a result, this discharge was used for sediment transport and corresponding
channel cross-section design throughout the project reach.
' 3.5 Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions
The habitat within and adjacent to the proposed project area consists of a Montane Alluvial Forest and a
Montane Oak-Hickory Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The riparian areas ranged from
' relatively disturbed to very disturbed. A general description of each community follows.
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 3-7 APRIL 8, 2008
0
3.5.1 Montane Alluvial Forest '
This ecological community covers approximately 85% of the project area and is located on large
alluvial floodplains adjacent to Logan Creek. The riparian buffer varied from narrow corridors of 5 to
15 feet in width at mid-reach to broad corridors exceeding 50 feet in width at the upstream and '
downstream project limits. The dominant canopy species of the montane alluvial forest area included
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), red maple (Acer rubrum), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis),
white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white pine (Pines strobus), and tulip '
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Understory and shrub species consisted of rhododendron
(Rhododendron spp.), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), brook-side alder (Alnus serrulata), '
fetterbush (Leucothoe fontanesiana), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), broad-leaved viburnum
(Viburnum cassinoides), and yellow-root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima). Herbaceous species consisted of
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), woodfern (Dryopteris spp.), wild hydrangea (Hydrangea '
arborescens), golden-rod (Solidago spp.), smartweed (Polygonum spp.), trillium (trillium spp.), violets
(Viola spp.), and club moss (Lycopodium spp.).
3.5.2 Montane Oak-Hickory Forest '
This ecological community is located on the steep hillsides along the left bank of Logan Creek, and is
an upland transition from the Montane Alluvial Forest. This ecological community covers

approximately 15% of the project area. The dominant canopy species included white oak (Quercus '
alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), chestnut oak (Quercus montana), mockernut hickory (Carya
alba), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), mountain maple (Acer spicatum), white pine (Pines strobus),
yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). Understory and shrub '
species consisted of American chestnut (Castanea dentata), rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.),
mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), flowering dogwood (Cornus
Florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), viburnum (Viburnum '
cassinoides), huckleberry (Gaylussacia spp.), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), and yellow Bakereye
(Aesculus octandra). Herbaceous vegetation is generally sparse and included Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), hayscented fern
'
(Dennstaedtia punctilobula), wild hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens), golden-rod (Solidago spp.),
galax (Galax aphylla), and club moss (Lycopodium spp.).
3.5.3 Swamp Forest Bog Complex '
This wetland habitat type is classified by the NC Natural Heritage Program as (S3) Rare or uncommon
in North Carolina and consists of a somewhat open tree canopy with a dense shrub layer. Within this

shrub layer small open boggy areas containing sphagnum are located within depressions. These boggy '
areas are permanently saturated and contain hydric soils. In addition, the boggy areas are less than 1-
acre in size. The bogs located within easement area of Lonesome Valley are surrounded by Cove

Forest. Tree species are generally found along the perimeter of the bogs and may include red maple '
(Acer rubrum), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis). The shrub
layer consists of Rosebay (Rhododendron maximum) and dog hobble (Leucothoe fonenesiana).
Herbaceous species within the open boggy areas may include Cinnamon Fern (Osmunda cinnamomea),
'
Turtlehead (Chelone sp).,Netted Chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), Bluet (Houstonia sp.), club moss
(Lycopodium lucidulum), sphagnum, and various carex species.
'
3.5.4 Southern Appalachian Bog
This wetland habitat type is classified by the NC Natural Heritage Program as (SIS2) critically
impaired in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extirpation in the state t
and consists of various zones of shrubs and herbaceous areas containing sphagnum. These bogs are
generally larger with a more open canopy than areas within the swamp forest bog complex. They
?rl
J
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 3-8 APRIL 8, 2008

u
' generally contain a larger, (> 1 acre) interior herbaceous layer. Species within this habitat are similar to
those of the Swamp Forest Bog Complex. Tree species are generally limited to the outer margins of the
bog. Dominant trees include red maple, yellow poplar, and hemlock. Shrubs include spicebush
' (Lindera benzoin), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and Rose (Rosa sp). Herbaceous species here
are dominated by various carex species.

H

1
3.5.5 Disturbed Areas
At mid-reach of the project area, degraded riparian areas are present and consist of buffer widths
ranging from 0 to 15 feet. A mowed lawn is adjacent to the riparian areas and herbaceous plant species
consist of fescue (Fescue spp.), lamb's ear (Stachys lanata), arrow-leaf sida (Sida rhombifolia),
buttercups (Ranunculus spp.), clovers (Trifolium spp.), and fennel (Foeniculum spp.). Some invasive
species in and around the riparian buffer consisted of multi-flora rose (Rosa muliflora), and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 3-9 APRIL 8, 2008
I
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS
In an effort to determine suitable reference data for the design we employed the NCDOT reference reach
database, identified a reference reach within the watershed and collected dimensional data from stable cross
sections within the project reach. Reference reach geomorphic data is summarized below in Table 4.1.
One undisturbed reference reach was found within the same watershed as the project site and surveyed for
reference conditions. Additionally, the NCDOT database was reviewed for applicable reference reach
streams. No existing reference reach steams exist in this database for the Savannah drainage, so we evaluated
those sites that were closest to the project site. Two additional sites with streams of similar type and substrate
were chosen as appropriate reference reaches for the Logan Creek Restoration.
The Right Prong reach is approximately .5 miles upstream of the project reach and has a watershed of .83
square miles. It is similar in slope, stream type, substrate and riparian vegetation. Baker conducted a survey
of approximately 150 LF encompassing one pool and one riffle cross section. Surveyed cross sections and
profile data are included in Appendix F.
Table 4.1
Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Min Min Max Max Min Max Min Max
1. Stream Type C4 E4 C4 E4
2. Drainage Area - square miles .83 1.9 7.2 2.08 2.67
3. Bankfull Width (wbkf) - feet 16.7 18.5 29.5 22.6
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) - feet 1.06 2.8 2.2 2.43
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 15.76 6.6 13.4 9.3
6. Cross-sectional Area Abkf) - SF 17.7 51 64.9 54.8
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbkf) - fps 3.55 5.5 3.28
8. Bankfull Discharge Qbkf) - cfs 97.6 - 375 180
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) - feet 1.54 3.5 3.2 3.5
10. dmbkf/dbkf ratio 1.5 1.25 1.45 1.44
11. Low Bank Height to dmbkf Ratio 1.2 - 1.1
12. Flood rune Area Width (w a) - feet 35 130 329 323
13. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 2.0 7.0 11.2 14.3
14. Meander length (L,n) - feet 150 185 260 350 -
15. Ratio of meander length to bankfull width

Lm/Wbkf) 9.0 10.0 11.9
-
16. Radius of curvature (Re) - feet 23 42.3 63.1 40.1 69.3 -
17. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull
width (Re / wbkf) 1.38 2.29 3.41 1.36 2.35
18. Belt width (wbk) - feet 80 30.5 44 59 75 -
19. Meander Width Ratio (wbh/Wbkf) 4.8 1.65 2.38 2.00 2.54 -
20. Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley
Distance 2.01 1.1 - 1.38
21. Valle Slope -feet per foot .0160 - - ..0045
22. Channel Slope (schannel) - feet per foot .0079 0.009 .0144 .0033
23. Pool Slope (s n(,l) - feet per foot .0033 - .0019 -
24. Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope
(spool / Schannel) 2.01 - - -
25. Maximum Pool Depth (d n,,l) - feet 2.28 3.5 4.1 2.2 2.8 4.2
26. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankfull
Depth (d of/dbkf) 2.15 1.25 1.46 1.00 1.27 1.73
27. Pool Width (w nil) - feet 15.88 18.5 19.7 35 68 27.9
28. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width
(Wool / wbkf) .95 1.00 1.06 1.19 2.31 1.23
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 4-1 APRIL 8, 2008

C
IJ

1
I

H

I

I
I
u
0
I

ach Geomorphic Parameters
=
L lkf
Ja..
Nlin Min
Max
Max
Min
Max Min Max
(A --A - s uare feet
Pool 20.11 51 54.5 89.3 132.5 58.1
ool Area to Bankfull Area 1.14 1.00 1.07 1.38 2.04 1.06

31. Pool-to-Pool Spacing -feet 75 97.5 179.8 271 334 -
32. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool Spacing to Bankfull 4.5 5.3 9.7 9.2 11.3
Width ( - /Wbkf)
33. Riffle Sloe (s,.;fne) - feet per foot 0.019 0.015 0.019 0.020 -
34. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope 1.188 1.7 2.1 1.4
Snflle/ Sbkf)
Parti cle Size Distribution of Riffle Material
Material (d5o)
dib - turn - 0.13 0.17 -
d35 - rnIn 0.3 29 -
d5o - mm - 1.9 58
ds4 - mm - 50 180
d95 - mm - 100 300 -
data not available
I BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 4-2

5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS '
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
i
il
i
d b
h
d '
c so
dence
y
y
r
It is likely that much of the project area once existed as a wetland ecosystem, as ev
areas across the floodplain of the site. Wetland areas that once existed on the site were drained and
manipulated to promote past land use. Sections of the stream may have been channelized within the project

area to improve surface and subsurface drainage and to decrease flooding. '
Following an in-office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, NRCS soil survey, and USGS
quadrangle map, a field survey of the project area was conducted to delineate wetlands and waters of the U. S. '
The project area was examined utilizing the jurisdictional definition detailed in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Supplementary information to further
support wetland determinations was found in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: ,
Southeast (Region 2) (Reed, 1988).
Wetland determinations were made by evaluating vegetation, soils and observable hydrologic indicators
within the project reach. Wetland boundaries were subsequently delineated in winter 2005-2006. The limits t
were recorded by metes-and-bounds survey in 2006.
Less than 500 acres of mountain bogs exist within North Carolina, and the entire Appalachian Highlands,
which includes the Appalachian Plateau, Ridge and Valley, and Blue Ridge provinces of Alabama, Georgia, '
Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, contain less than 6,175 acres (Moorhead and Rossell,
1998). Mountain bogs in North Carolina are generally small, isolated and rare wetlands largely concentrated
in two areas: a band between Henderson and Clay counties in the southern mountains (including the Savannah '
River basin); and in Avery, Watuaga, Ashe and Alleghany counties in the northern mountains (Early, 1989).
North Carolina's mountain bogs are known to host 77 species of rare, threatened or endangered plants such as

the bunched arrowhead, swamp pink and Gray's lily. In addition to harboring important plant species, the '
state's mountain bogs also host five species of rare, threatened or endangered animals (Murdock, 1994), most
notably the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). Of the estimated 500 acres of mountain bogs in North
Carolina, less than half support bog turtles (Herman, 1994). '
Little research has investigated the hydrology of these bogs, but they may be found in four principle positions
on the landscape: 1) headwater regions of mountain streams; 2) slopes intercepting the water table and subject

to constant groundwater seepage; 3) stream valleys no longer subject to flooding; and 4) isolated systems over '
resistant rock strata (Walbridge, 1991; Weakley and Schafale, 1994). Although these wetlands are
groundwater fed, technically called "fens" in classifications based on water source, they are locally known as

bogs and have been called that in most publications within the state. The groundwater in fens tends to be '
acidic and nutrient poor, because of the rock and soil types it flows through. Groundwater in these areas of the
Savannah River basin is less rich than is typical of most northern fens; therefore, the vegetation is more "bog-
like" (Pohlman, September 2001). '
Many bogs are privately owned and not actively managed or protected (Weakley and Moorhead, 1991).
Historically ditched and drained for farms, ponds and pastures, mountain bogs today are also imperiled by

development activities. Active management of some mountain bogs has focused on protecting or enhancing '
habitat for bog turtles or rare plants (Moorhead and Rossell, 1998).
Most wetlands found on the project site are hydrologically connected to Logan Creek through both natural

and mechanically produced drain channels. Stream realignment and reconstruction will be designed to avoid '
wetland impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Nine wetlands, totaling 1.71 acres, were identified within
the proposed easement boundary areas shown on Figure 5.1. These wetlands are in good condition and will

be preserved within the easement being established to protect the stream restoration project. We are not '
requesting stream mitigation credit for the preservation of these wetlands.

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 5-1 APRIL 8, 2008

I

0
6.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
' This section discusses the design criteria selected for stream restoration on the Logan Creek project site.
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
This project site is an appropriate candidate for restoration because significantly more erosion will occur
before the channel is able to achieve a stable, quasi-equilibrium state. Most of the project reach appears to
have one of two problems: either over-widened with debris jams, aggradation and channel erosion or
accelerated meandering and erosion due to a lack of vegetation. These two instability problems are
contributing extensive sediment to the areas downstream of the project site. Restoration can help to stabilize
the channel, halt over-widening, establish proper pattern and significantly diminish bank erosion.
' This watershed is under pressure from development and other human impacts. Much of the stream length has
eroding banks due to lateral migration of the channel. If left alone the development of a stable dimension and
' pattern at a new floodplain elevation would continue through erosion and aggradation. The restoration
approach on the mainstem is targeted at moving the evolutionary process to a final stable condition. The
over-wide channel condition and bank erosion on Reaches 1 and 3 will be addressed by the installation of
wood based structures that will center the thalwag, improve sediment transport and stabilize failing stream
' banks. The unstable stream pattern and erosion on Reach 2 will be improved by grading a new sinuous
pattern. Bank stability and habitat improvement will be accomplished by installing log structures in meanders
and along riffles. Grading a new cross-section will improve sediment transport while providing improved
' trout habitat. Vegetation along all reaches will be modified to increase diversity by reducing the density of
rhododendron and planting a mix of species that root deeply and provide higher quality biomass to the stream
to support aquatic food chains. Invasive vegetative species removal efforts and reforestation of the riparian
' buffer with native species will complement the channel restoration.
6.2 Design Criteria Selection for Stream Restoration
' Selection of natural channel design criteria is based on a combination of approaches including review of
reference reach databases, hydraulic modeling, sediment transport predictions, and evaluation of results from
' past projects.
Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria at the Logan Creek
site. The approach was based on the reach's potential for restoration, as determined during the site
' assessment. After selection of the general restoration approach, specific design criteria were developed so
that the plan view layout, cross-section dimensions, and profile could be described for each reach, for the
purpose of developing construction documents. The design philosophy at the Logan Creek site is to use
' average values for the selected stream type when designing dimension and profile and to work within the
ranges expected for the selected stream type with regards to pattern and instream structures used. This
approach should allow for maximum diversity of pattern and habitat while maintaining stable pools and
riffles. Extreme variation in form will develop over long periods of time under the processes of flooding, re-
colonization of vegetation, and geologic influences.
After examining the existing conditions, recognizing the potential for restoration, and reviewing reference
reach data, design criteria were developed. Assigning an appropriate stream type for the corresponding valley
that will accommodate the existing and future hydrologic and sediment contributions was considered
conceptually prior to selecting reference reach streams. Design criteria for the proposed stream were selected
' based on the range of the reference data and the desired performance of the proposed channel. Following
initial application of the design criteria, detail refinements were made to accommodate the existing valley
morphology, to avoid encroachment of property boundaries and the valley wall, to minimize unnecessary
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 6-1 APRIL 8, 2008

disturbance of the existing large trees, and to promote natural channel adjustment following construction. The
proposed design rationale for the project are summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1
1'roieci Dc,?igii Strc im T.vpc,? and Ramos alc
Reach Proposed Rationale
Stream
{ Type
An Lnhaucement l approach ?N;ill be used to mopc slumped and aggraded sediment
through the channel and to improve sediment transport through the reach. The
thalweg will be centered using log structures to reduce erosion, address an over-
Reach 1 C4 wide area and to improve habitat. Use of the existing channel will limit grading
and disturbance. Trees will be planted to provide bank stabilization, shading and
vegetative diversity.
A Restoration approach will be used to establish a stable, sinuous channel with
greater pool habitat. Over-wide sections will be narrowed to improve depth and
sediment transport. Eroding banks will be stabilized by correcting pattern and by
installing log based structures that direct flow to the thalweg and improve aquatic
Reach 2 C4 habitat. Constructed channels will provide connectivity to floodplains. Forest
diversity and bank stability will be improved by reducing the extent of
rhododendron coverage, eliminating nonnative vegetation and planting diverse tree,
shrub and herbaceous species.
An Enhancement I approach will be used to move aggraded sediment through the
channel and to improve sediment transport through the reach. The thalweg will be
centered using log structures to reduce erosion, address several over-wide areas and
Reach 3 C4 improve habitat. Use of the existing channel will limit grading and disturbance.
Where necessary, trees will be planted to provide bank stabilization, shading and
vegetative diversity.

6.3 Design Parameters
The primary objective of the restoration design is to construct a stream with a stable dimension, pattern, and
profile that has access to its floodplain at bankfull flows while enhancing riparian and aquatic habitat. The
philosophy applied by Baker through the Logan Creek project reach consisted of creating a low width-depth
ratio C-type channel with the expectation that it will naturally adjust toward a narrower E-type channel over
time as the riparian buffers become more established. The proposed design for the entire project reach is
shown in Figure 6.1 and is presented in more detail on the plans.
The design rationale and design parameters for all of the design reaches are presented below.
Dimension
Throughout the entire proposed design, the cross-section dimensions were adjusted to reduce velocities
and near-bank shear stress during storm flows. Channel width was designed to maintain velocities that
will move small grain particles through the reach and avoid aggradation. The selected cross section
dimensions provide access to the floodplain by storm flows greater than bankfull. The lower end of the
width-depth ratio for an C-type channel was chosen (11.6) so that the channel may easily narrow to a
lower width-depth E-type morphology over time. Low width-depth ratio channels maintain their steep
banks by high root densities. They are difficult to construct due to having very little root mass
immediately after construction, which results in high risk of instability in the short term. The proposed

I

I

I

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 6-2 APRIL 8, 2008

s * Sl
t'y # } i9

!
y `s '
Arw
t
Vol-
PA.

a ?*? i e
C
' channel has low sloping banks that are more stable and will allow for sediment build up and plant
colonization, leading to a future low width-depth channel. A low bank height ratio (BHR) of 1.0 was
designed so the channel has access to the floodplain during events having flows in excess of bankfull.
' Typical cross sections are shown on the attached plan sheets.
Pattern
The proposed channel alignment on Reach 2 will decrease the stream length and thus sinuosity slightly;
the stream length in Reaches 1 and 3 will be essentially unchanged. This reduction in stream length
represents pattern changes that remove overly sinuous meanders. Higher meander width ratios on the
' restored channel were intended to allow for lateral dissipation of energy and provide a floodplain
sufficient for future natural channel development. A wide range of radii of curvature was utilized in the
design to allow for connecting to sections of existing channel, to avoid as many large trees as possible
and to provide diversity of pattern. Plan views of the main channel are shown on the attached plan
' sheets.
Profile/Bedform
' Although moderately functional and somewhat stable, the channel profile of the existing mainstem is
lacking sufficient overall bedform diversity. During the construction of the proposed channel, cross
section dimensions will be achieved first, followed by structure placement and facet development to
' mimic characteristics of the reference conditions. Average channel slope for the total reach is .0035
which is a decrease from the existing reach-wide slope of .0047. This reflects the change in channel
length. Riffles throughout the design reaches are between .6 and 2.0 times the average slope of the
channel. The low riffle slopes are associated with connecting to existing ground sections were profile
will not change. Design riffle slopes are usually between 1.5 and 2 times average slope. The maximum
pool depth is proposed to be constructed from five feet upstream of the meander curve apex to a point
' 10 feet along the profile from the apex were a glide will begin to the head of the next riffle. Structural
modifications to the existing profile will be done primarily with log structures rather than rock
structures because large rock is fairly rare in this channel and large woody debris is common.
' Design Reaches
A stable cross-section will be achieved by narrowing the channel where it is over-wide and laterally
unstable and decreasing the width/depth ratio. In other sections stability will be enhanced by achieving
a cross-section with banks that are low sloping to bankfull and the sinuosity will be increased by adding
meanders to lengthen the channel and increase the area of deep water habitat. Grade control at the bed
is not a major concern at this site due to the very low slope of the valley and the occasional presence of
bedrock knick points. A variety of in-stream log structures will be used to enhance stability and
improve habitat. These structures include log cross-vanes, log vanes, log step structures and randomly
embedded logs. Bioengineering and in-stream structures will be used at the outside of meander bends
' (including root wads, vegetated geo-lifts, bunkers, log vanes and cover logs) to promote additional bank
stability and improve habitat.
Reach 1, a 450-LF reach, is designed as a Rosgen C4 stream type, having a low slope and minimal
meandering. Due to the constraints of the adjacent wetlands on the right bank and a hill slope on the
left bank, pattern will not be changed through this reach. A variety of in-stream structures will be
installed in this reach including log cross vanes, log vanes, and log steps that will serve to center the
thalweg, improve sediment transport and improve habitat quality.
Reach 2 is approximately 3,140 LF in length (not including sections excluded from the easement) and
' begins at the point where Reach 1 ends. This reach, designed as an C4-type stream, involves
Restoration level work with the construction of a new sinuous channel that meanders back and forth
across the existing channel and utilizes short sections of the existing channel. Sinuosity through this
reach was designed to avoid as many existing large trees as possible. At two different locations along
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 6-3 APRIL 8, 2008
1
0
the proposed channel the design alignment will abandon existing small radius meander bends that are
flowing up-valley (area of 15+50 and 19+00). The plan also changes the alignment along a section
(area of 30+50 to 32+00) that presently has flows against a steep and high (10 foot) right bank where
erosion causes a constant sedimentation problem. Meanders through this reach will be stabilized using
vegetated geo-lifts, rootwad revetments or bunkers. These structures may also include cover logs and
transplanted vegetation on the banks. Riparian vegetation will be managed to improve diversity of
deeply rooted species.
The final 1,000 LF of the project, Reach 3, begins below Reach 2 and an area excluded because of a
road crossing and continues to the end of the project at US 64. The reach will be not have the pattern
altered significantly. Alterations to dimension and profile will be those that reduce stream width,
improve sediment transport and improve aquatic habitat. To this end a variety of in-stream structures
will be installed in this reach including log cross vanes, log vanes, and a hanging cover log.
Table 6.2 presents the proposed stream restoration design criteria applied through the project reach.
Table 6.2
I)cvi?r? I'ar;;nn?ter; uncl I'rnhn,ccl Grnnxuhhii (?hnrectcri<tics
Desig n Reac hes
11iI! 'i 'Y);i?
1. Stream Ty pe E4
2. Drainage Area - square miles 2.67
3. Bankfull Width (wbkf) - feet 26
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dhk f) - feet 2.25
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 11.6
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) - SF 58.5
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbkf) - f PS 3.08
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qbk f) - cfs 180
9. Bankfull Max Depth (d,,,bkf) - feet 4.0
10. d,,,bkf/dbkf ratio 1.78
It. Low Bank Height to d,,,lkf Ratio 1.0
12. Flood rune Area Width (w a) - feet 150
13. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 5.8
14. Meander length (L,,,) - feet Hs 236
15. Ratio of meander length to bankfull width (Lm/wbkf) 4.54 9.1
16. Radius of curvature (Re) - feet 27.5 75
17. Ratio of radius of curvature to Bankfull width (R, / wbkf) 1.06 2.88
18. Belt width (whi,) - feet 65 140
19. Meander Width Ratio (wbft/Wbkf) 2.5 5.38
20. Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley Distance 1.30
21. Valle Slope - feet per foot .0047
22. Channel Slope (scha1111ei) - feet per foot .0035
23. Pool Slope (s ,,,i) - feet per foot .001
24. Maximum Pool Depth (d )ol) - feet 6.0
25. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankfull Depth (d,o,I/dbkf) 1.5
26. Pool Width (w ,,„i) - feet 29
27. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width (w «,i / wbkf) 1.12
28. Pool Area (A io1) - square feet 99
29. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area A ,,,,I/Abkf) 1.13
30. Pool-to-Pool Spacing - feet 94 165
31. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width ( /wbkf) 3.6 6.3
32. Riffle Slope "( (s,.;fl?e) - feet per foot .003 .007
33. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope (s,;fp SRO 0.9 2.0

J

1

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 6-4 APRIL 6, ZUU8
1

' 6.4 Sediment Transport
6.4.1 Methodology
' The purpose of a sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. The overriding assumption is that the project
reach should be transporting all the sediment delivered from upstream sources, thereby being a
' "transport" reach.
Sediment transport is typically assessed by computing channel competency, capacity, or both.
' Sediment transport competency is a measure of force (lbs/ft2) that refers to the stream's ability to move
a given grain size. Quantitative assessments include shear stress, tractive force, and critical
dimensionless shear stress. Since these assessments help determine a size class that is mobile under
' certain flow conditions, they are most important in gravel bed studies in which the bed material ranges
in size from sand to cobble (of which only a fraction are mobile during bankf ill conditions). In most
sand and small gravel-bed systems, all particle sizes have potential during bankfull flows; therefore,
' there is no need to determine the maximum particle size that the stream can transport. Comparing the
design shear stress values for a project reach to those for the existing conditions in a system allows a
quantitative determination of reduction of erosive forces.
' 6.4.2 Sediment Transport Analysis and Discussion
Existing channel form and sediment composition data, design data, hydraulic and sediment transport
' models, design spreadsheets, and best judgment were used to perform sediment transport analyses for
Logan Creek. The small particle size makes sediment competence analysis secondary to sediment
capacity.
' Adequate sediment transport capacity analysis provides confidence in the capability of the design to
transport a long-term balanced volumetric sediment load through all segments of the restoration reach.
A design incorporating sediment transport results has a higher likelihood of maintaining its vertical
' stability while adjusting within stable limits to watershed and in-stream changes.
The existing project reach was modeled in HEC-RAS 4.0 (US Army Corps of Engineers 2006). The
HEC-RAS sediment transport module incorporates sediment distribution data from field samples to
' estimate the concentration of sediment moving during design flow conditions based on the results of the
water surface profile and velocities produced by the physical characteristics of the channel and
floodplain. The result is a volumetric sediment discharge (or capacity) for the chosen design flow rate.
t Subpavement (or bulk) samples from point bar and mid-channel bar locations were used to determine
the sediment distributions for sediment transport (Table 3.2). Appendix G contains cumulative
' frequency graphs for all sediment samples used in the sediment transport analyses. Project reaches
have median particle sizes ranging from fine to medium size gravel. Design sediment sizes used in
transport capacity analyses were D16=0.7 mm, D50=2.7 mm, and D84=14mm. The analyses were also
checked for sensitivity to design sediment; transport capacity had an acceptably small sensitivity to the
' variations in distribution exhibited in the sediment samples.
Volumetric sediment discharge was analyzed at existing stable cross-sections in the project reach.
' These reference cross-sections are used to determine what the design sediment flow rate should be. The
stable channel design module within HEC-RAS allows the modeler to incorporate design sediment
discharge and design flow rate data in order to produce dimensions and energy slopes which will
capably transport the sediment and water. Various combinations of channel cross-section and profile
' were assessed for their capability to move the design sediment discharge. These stable dimensions and
slopes were incorporated into the typical riffle cross-section and design slope of the project.
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 6-5 APRIL 8, 2008

While sediment competency is not considered to be a significant concern due to the presence of
primarily sand and small gravel sediment sizes, a design depth capable of moving the largest sediment
particles in the channel was determined. Sediment transport competency is measured in terms of the
relationship between critical and actual depth at a given slope, and it occurs when the critical depth
produces enough shear stress to move the largest (d,ot,) subpavement particle. As shown in Table 6.2,
the critical design depth is 1.4 feet, and the critical slope is 0.00229 feet per foot. The design depth is
2.25 feet and the proposed slope is 0.0032 feet per foot. As a second check of sediment transport
competency, boundary shear stress was plotted on Shield's curve to estimate the largest moveable
particle. The Shield's curve predicts the mobility of particles larger than the dtoo observed in the
subpavement. Both of these sediment transport competency analyses confirm the ability of the design
channel to transport the sediment load, not surprising for a sand and small gravel system
6.5 In-Stream Structures
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the Logan Creek site. Structures such as root wads,
log cross-vanes and log vanes, and bioengineering measures such as geolifts will be used to stabilize the
newly-restored stream. Wood (as opposed to rock )structures will primarily be used on this site because
that is the material observed in the existing system and it is being generated by the development in the
watershed and during the channel construction process. Table 6.3 summarizes the use of in-stream
structures at the site.
Table 6.3
Proposed In-Stream Structure l\anal Location,
4 Location
Log J-hook Vane Riffles to turn water off of the stream bank and provide convergence for habitat
improvement.
Log Step Riffles for habitat diversity.
Root Wad Outside bank of meander bends for stability and habitat.
Log Cross Vane Straight sections to reduce stream width, center thalweg and improve habitat.
Hanging Cover Log Riffles to create pool habitat.
Root Wad and Log Sill Riffles for grade control and pool habitat.
Embedded Logs Primarily riffles to improve habitat diversity.
Bunker In meander bends for stability and habitat improvement
Vegetated Geo-lift Outside meander bends for stability and vegetative cover.
Cover Log In pools to provide habitat features.
Log Vanc In meander bends to turn water provide minimal pool habitat.
Log J-hook Vane
A log J-hook vane serves that same purposes and is constructed in the same manner as the log vane.
The difference is that at the end of the vane arm a "comma" shaped series of rocks is placed in the
channel to promote convergence of flow and scouring of the bed. This modification to the log vane
promotes pool formation and habitat improvement. One of these structures will be constructed in
Reach 2.
I

I

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 6-6 APRIL 8, 2008

L

1

Log Step
A log step is used to enhance habitat and bed form diversity through longer riffle reaches. Log steps are
constructed from 20-30 foot long logs with the rootwad attached. The length of a single log is laid
across and upstream on the channel and spans the channel width. A series of two to four logs are
installed to provide the bed diversity desired. A log step series is planned at one location on Reach 1, at
two locations on Reach 2 and at 1 location on Reach 3.
Root Wad
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank in the outside of meander bends for the creation of
habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball of a tree plus a
portion of the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank by deflecting stream flows away from the
bank. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural support to the stream bank and
habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also increase substate surface area for aquatic insects
and other benthic organisms. Root wads will be placed throughout Reach 2 of the Logan Creek project
and at one location on both Reach 1 and Reach 3.
Log Cross Vane
' Cross vanes are used to provide grade control, keep the thalweg in the center of the channel, promote
channel narrowing and protect the stream bank. A cross vane consists of two log vanes joined by a
center structure installed perpendicular to the direction of flow. This centering structure sets the invert
' elevation of the stream bed. One of these structures will be placed in each of the project reaches to
center the thalweg and promote stream narrowing.
' Hanging Cover Log
This structure is new and is being tried at one location in Reach 3. It is designed to act like a tree that
has fallen across the channel. It will be tied into the bank on one side of the channel and will rise to rest
at bankfull on the far side of the channel. When a log hangs over the channel in this fashion it causes
' pressure and scour on the bed below the hanging cover log. This should help move sediment through
this reach and create pool habitat in an area that now has a shallow sand bed.
' Rootwad and Log Sill
Log sills consist of a footer log placed in the bed of the stream channel, perpendicular to stream flow.
The logs extend into the stream banks on both sides of the structure to prevent erosion and bypassing of
' the structure. The logs are installed flush with the channel bottom upstream of the log. The footer log
is placed to the depth of scour expected, to prevent the structure from being undermined. Rootwads are
added into both left and right banks immediately below the sill to narrow the convergence zone, extend
' the pool and support the sill. Log sills provide bedform diversity, maintain channel profile, and provide
pool and cover habitat. One of these structures will be installed in Reach 1 and two in Reach 3.
' Embedded Logs

Embedded log placement is proposed in riffle areas throughout the project. Some specific sites have
been identified for installation of these structures, but additional sites may be determined in the field as
opportunities arise. The woody structure placement produces lateral and vertical flow diversity at low
flows. At bankfull flows, the logs serve as energy dissipation features, adding to the overall bed
roughness and providing local downstream eddy and scour pool microhabitat.
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 6-7 APRIL 8, 2008

Bunker
Bunkers are placed at the toe of the stream bank in the outside of meander bends for the creation of
habitat and for stream bank protection. The base is constructed like a rootwad installation with the logs
placed at or just below water level. Behind the rootwad and on the logs a deck is constructed of treated
wood or small tree trunks. This is covered with a geo-textile and filled to the bankfull elevation. This
structure provides an artificial undercut bank that benefits fisheries, particularly trout fisheries.
Bunkers will be placed throughout Reach 2.
Vegetated Geolift
Soil lifts of 1.0 to 1.5 feet thick are constructed on a stone base. The lift is filled and compacted to the
appropriate depth and is then wrapped with coir matting. A second layer of matting is laid down and
fill is compacted on it to the appropriate depth and then wrapped. This continues until the desired
elevation is reached. Vegetation can then be planted directly into the lifts as either live stakes or rooted
material. Vegetated geolifts help to establish vegetation on the bank to secure the soil. Once the
vegetation is established, the branches also provide cover and food for wildlife. Vegetated geolifts will
be placed throughout Reach 2 of the Logan Creek project.
Cover Log
A cover log is placed in the outside of a meander bend to provide habitat in the pool area. The log is
buried into the outside bank of the meander bend; the opposite end extends through the deepest part of
the pool and may be buried in the inside of the meander bend, in the bottom of the point bar. The
placement of the cover log near the bottom of the bank slope on the outside of the bend encourages
scour in the pool. This increased scour provides a deeper pool for bedform variability. Cover logs will
be used throughout Reach 2 in association with vegetated geolifts.
Log Vane
A log vane is used to protect the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can span one-half to
two-thirds the bankfull channel width. Vanes are typically located just downstream of the point where
the stream flow intercepts the bank at acute angles. Log vanes will be placed throughout the Logan
Creek project.
6.6 Flood Modeling
A HEC-RAS model was built from the existing conditions survey to evaluate how bankfull indicators
aligned with the bankfull discharge and to evaluate sediment transport as explained in sections 3.4 and 6.4.
However, proposed conditions have not been modeled at this point in project planning to determine how the
project might affect flooding. It is unknown whether further study will be required by the local floodplain
manager, but Baker will be consulting with that office to determine what they will require.
According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Jackson County, NC, (Panel Number
37028201750) the lower two thirds of the project reach is within a regulatory floodplain, zone A (Figure
2.3). While flood modeling is not required for zone A areas, Baker will use the proposed alignment and
typical sections for modeling in HEC-RAS to determine what impact the proposed design may have on
flooding. No insurable structures are in the area of the stream project and any change in the 100-year water
surface is expected be minimal.

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 6-8 APRIL 8, 2008
1

L,

0

?I

6.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Native riparian vegetation will be established in the restored stream buffer. Also, any areas of invasive
vegetation such as multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle will be eradicated so as not to threaten the
newly-established native plants within the conservation easement.
6.7.1 Rhododendron Control
The riparian buffer along the upper part of the Reach 2 has a very thick stand of Rhododendron
maximum. The density of the 10 to 15 foot high shrubs is having an adverse impact on the riparian
zone and stream channel of Logan Creek. The dense stands of evergreen rhododendron appear to be
shading out small trees that attempt to germinate and grow under their canopy. This has resulted in a
forest with a few large, older trees but few young trees to replace them. Aquatic populations depend on
inputs of large woody debris so any factor that limits the growth of tree species is detrimental to the
overall health of the system (Flebbe and Dolloff 1995). This has impacted the stability of the creek
banks because rhododendrons are a shallow rooted species. They do not create the root mass needed to
provide stability to the stream banks and they are out-competing more deeply rooted tree species. As
limbs from the plants die and fall into the channel or when plants are washed out of the banks they form
dense debris jams that further increase channel instability. Rhododendrons are also a less desirable
stream side species because their leaves do not easily decompose, limiting their support of aquatic food
chains.
Riparian buffer management along this reach will include reducing the density of rhododendron within
20 feet of the stream bank. We will cut back the existing plants within this area and mechanically
remove unwanted plants. Many of these will be transplanted to other areas along the channel; however,
some will be destroyed. Other more low growing species, such as yellow root and dog hobble, will be
planted or transplanted to this area. We will also plant tree species that will grow to varying mature
heights within this buffer area. The long-term goal of this management plan is to increase vegetative
diversity within the buffer zone, increase stream bank stability with deeply rooted species and promote
the growth of species that will provide shade, high quality leaf litter and terrestrial wildlife habitat.
6.7.2 Stream Buffer Vegetation
A 30-foot buffer measured from the top of banks (sometimes slightly less and quite often, substantially
more, average 45 feet) will be established along the restored stream reaches. This buffer area will be
protected by a conservation easement. Plantings in the buffer area will include bare-root, balled and
burlap, seedlings and transplanted trees and shrubs. Vegetation will be planted at a target density of
500 stems per acre, with trees being planted on a minimum 10-foot spacing and shrubs on a 6-foot
spacing. Live stakes will also be planted along the stream banks on a 3-foot spacing. The proposed
species to be planted are listed in Table 6.4. Planting of bare-root trees and live stakes will be
conducted during the first dormant season following construction. If construction activities are
completed in summer/fall of a given year, all vegetation will be installed prior to the start of the
growing season of the following calendar year.
Species selection for re-vegetation of the site will generally follow those suggested by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetland Research
Program (WRP) Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997). Tree species selected for stream restoration areas
will be generally weakly tolerant to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species are able to survive
and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of time. Moderately
tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several months during the
growing season. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or
flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 6-9
APKIL d, 'LUU25
I
Observations will be made during construction regarding the relative wetness of areas to be planted. t
Planting zones will be determined based on these observations, and planted species will be matched
according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Live stakes will be installed at least three feet apart using triangular spacing at a density of 60 to 100
stakes per 1,000 square feet along the stream banks between the toe of the stream bank and bankfull
elevation. Site variations may require slightly different spacing. Transplanted material may be used in
the place of live stakes when possible.
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 6.5 lists the
species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used. Mixtures will include temporary seeding (rye
grain or browntop millet). The permanent seed mixture will be applied to all disturbed areas of the
restored stream channel and is intended to provide rapid growth of herbaceous ground cover and
biological habitat value. The species provided are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate
along restored stream channels, providing long-term stability.
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion.
These areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. Temporary
seeding will done with a millet species, most likely browntop, applied at a rate of 40 pounds per acre.
Table 6.4
I'ropo ,cd llarc-i toot ?iml 11w St,ikc Species
Common Name Scientific Name
Stream Restoration and f?uh:nucuunt Areas- Zone 1 (>15' from top of bank)
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tcdipifera
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Black walnut Juglans nigra
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
Blackgum Nyssa salvatica
Alternate Species
River Birch Benda nigra
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata
Redbud Cercis canadensis
Flowering dogwood Cornus floridu
Southern red oak Quercus rubra
Red Maple Acer rubrum
Witch Hazel Hamamalis virginiana
Alternate-leaved Dogwood Cornus alternifolia
Stream Restoration Buffer- Zone 2 (<15' from top of bank)
Redbud Cercis canadensis
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida
Tag alder Alnus serrulata

BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 6-10
APRIL 8, 2008

I

I

Table 6.4
Pruh?,;c?' 13??,?-l2uc,t tus?l Li??? Stakc Sp?cic?
C onarnon ti ame Scientific 'Vance
Silky willow Salix sericea
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Arrow-wood viburnum Viburnum dentatum
Alternate Species
Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolia
Black haw viburnum Viburnum prunifolium
Canada Hemlock Tsuga canadensis
White Pine Pinus strobus
White Oak Quercus alba
Pignut Hickory Carya glabra
Cherry Birch Betula lenta
Black Cherry Prunus serotina
Shrubs
Possomhaw Viburnum cassinoides
Black Huckleberry Gaylussacia baccata
Mountain Holly Ilex Montana
Buffalo Nut Pyrularia pubera
Rosebay Rhododendron Rhododendron maximum
Mountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia
Dog Hobble Leucothoe fontanesiana
Swamp Azalea Rhododendron viscosum
Smooth Azalea Rhododendron arborescens
Yellow Root Xanthorhvza simplicissima
Cinnamon Clethra Clethra acumunata
Mountain Hydrangea Hydrangea arborescens
Southern Bush Honeysuckle Diervilla sessilifolia
Hardhack Spirea tomentosa
Streambanks (Live Stakes)
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum
Silky willow Salix sericea
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Note: Species selection may change due to availability at the time of planting.
Table 6.5
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 6-11
APRIL 8, 2008
Common Name Scientific Name Percent of
Mixture
Bull Rush Scirpus cyperinus 5%
Redtop Agrostis alba 15%
Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea 10%
Virginia Wild Rye Elymus virginicus 20%
Soft Rush Juncus effisus 5%
Deer Tongue Panicum clandestinum 10%
Smartweed Polygonum pennsylvanicum 5%
Beggers Ticks Bidens frondosa 5%
Lance leafed
Coreopsis Coreopsis lancolata 15%
Partridge Pea Cassia fasciculata 5%
Wingstem Verbesina alternifolia 5%
Note: Species selection may change due to availability at the time of planting.
6.7.3 On-site Invasive Species Management
The site has some limited stands of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) on the floodplains along Logan Creek. These stands will be mechanically
removed during construction and destroyed. These populations will be monitored to evaluate if
they begin to reestablish. If these species persist after removal, individual plants will be treated
with a direct application of herbicide and monitored to insure they are completely eradicated.
Areas of infestation by these invasive species will be monitored to insure they do not threaten the
newly-planted riparian vegetation by becoming reestablished.
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 6-12 APRIL 8, 2008

' 7.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
' The Baker team has been involved in obtaining recent approvals from the regulatory agencies for a series of
mitigation and restoration plans for wetland and stream projects. The stream restoration success criteria for
the project site will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in recent restoration and
mitigation plans developed for numerous NCEEP full deliver projects, as well as the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines issued in April 2003. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
7.1 Stream Monitoring
Channel stability and vegetation survival will be monitored on the project site. Post-restoration monitoring
will be conducted for five years following the completion of construction to document project success.
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches will be conducted for five years to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross
sections), pattern (longitudinal survey), profile (profile survey), and photographic documentation. The
' methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
7.1.1 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
crest gage and photographs. The crest gage will be installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of the
restored channel. The crest gage will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the gage
will be checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits.
' Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period.
Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in
separate years.
' 7.1.2 Cross Sections
Two permanent cross sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work, with
one located at a riffle cross-section and one located at a pool cross-section. Each cross-section will be
marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark
will be used for cross sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data.
The annual cross-section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of
bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross sections
will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-
cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections will be classified using the
Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.

7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed immediately after construction and once every year thereafter
for the duration of the five-year monitoring period. The as-built survey will be used as the baseline for
year one monitoring. Representative 3,000 LF segments of the restored Logan Creek project reach will
be surveyed. Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 7-1 APRIL 30, 2008
1
G
of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum
pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable; i.e., they are not
aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep, with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles
should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms observed should be consistent with
those observed for channels of the design stream type.
7.1.4 Bed Material Analyses
Pebble counts will be conducted for at least six permanent cross-sections (100-counts per cross-section)
for each project reach. Pebble counts will be conducted immediately after construction and at a two-
year interval thereafter at the time the longitudinal surveys are performed (years three and five)
throughout the five year monitoring period. Pebble count data will be plotted on semi-log paper and
compared with data from pervious years.
7.1.5 Photo Reference Sites
Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued annually for at least five years following construction.
Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be
established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each
monitoring period.
Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section.
Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross-section. The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of
the bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure photos. Photographs will be taken at each grade control structure along the restored stream,
limited to cross-veins and weir structures. Photographers should make every effort to consistently
maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Photographs will be used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of
riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively. Lateral photos should
not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time
should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation.
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to determine if
the criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring quadrants will be installed across the restoration site. The
number of quadrants required will be based on the species/area curve method, with a minimum of three
quadrants. The size of individual quadrants will vary from 100 square meters for tree species to 1 square
meter for herbaceous vegetation. Vegetation monitoring will occur in spring, after leaf-out has occurred.
Individual quadrant data will be provided and will include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities.
Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be
marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from
the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted
seedlings.
At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated. For each
subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated between July
and November.
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 7-2

11

J

t
7,

F11

1
1

APRIL 30, 2008

' Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the
recommendations found in the WRP Technical Note and past project experience.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320, 3-year old, planted
' trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria will be
the survival of 260, 5-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period. While
measuring species density is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success on
' restoration projects, species density alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health. For this
reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of additional plant community indices
to assess overall vegetative success.
' 7.3 Benthic Monitoring
If required by NC DWQ as part of the permitting requirements of the project, benthic macroinvertebrate
' sampling will be conducted on the restored site after one year of construction and every two years thereafter
(years three and five) throughout the five year monitoring period. Appropriate sampling methodologies will
be based on current sampling protocols approved by the NCDWQ.
' 7.4 Maintenance Issues
' Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods
than those with a mature, hardwood forest.
' • Projects with sandy, non-cohesive soils are more prone to short-term bank erosion than cohesive soils or
soils with high gravel and cobble content.
• Alluvial valley channels with wide floodplains are less vulnerable than confined channels.
' Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
' particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to which a native buffer can be
established.
' Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the as-built
and monitoring reports. The conditions listed above and any other factors that may have necessitated
maintenance will be discussed.
' 7.5 Schedule/ Reporting
' Annual monitoring reports containing the information defined herein will be submitted to NCEEP by
December 31 of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. Project success criteria must be met by
the fifth monitoring year, or monitoring will continue until all success criteria are met.
?u

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 7-3 APRIL B, 2008

8.0 REFERENCES
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers, '
Waterways Exp. Stn. Tech. Rep. WRP-DE-4. Washington, DC. 79 pp. + app.
Copeland, RR, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects. '
Washington, DC.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA. '
Flebbe, P.A., C.A. Dollof£ 1995. Trout Use of Woody Debris and Habitat in Appalachian Wilderness
Streams of North Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 15:579-590. '
Goldsmith, R., Milton, D.J., and Horton, J.W. 1985. Geologic Map of the Charlotte 1 ° x 2° Quadrangle,
North Carolina and South Carolina. USGS Map I-1251-E, 3p.
Hadley, J.B. and Nelson, A.E., 1971, Geologic map of the Knoxville quadrangle, North Carolina, Tennessee, '
and South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-654, scale
9432.htm
1:250000. http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc
_
Harman, W.A., D.E. Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, M.A. Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D. '
Clinton, and J. Patterson. 2000. Bankfall regional curves for North Carolina mountain streams. In
Proc. AWRA Conf. Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage, Alaska, ed. E.L. Kane,
pp. 185-190. Middleburg, VA.: American Water Resources Association. '
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234-1279. '
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geolo ig c map of North Carolina: North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, scale 1:500000.
Reed, Jr., and Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. '
US Fish & Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88(24). 244 pp.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199. '
1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on

Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Wang, S.S.Y, E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. '
Shields, Jr., eds. 12-22.
1998. The reference reach - A blueprint for natural channel design (draft). ASCE Conference on River

Restoration. Denver CO. March, 1998. ASCE. Reston, VA. '
2001a. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal Interagency
Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
2001b. The cross-vane, w-weir and j-hook vane structures... their description, design and application
for stream stabilization and river restoration. ASCE conference. Reno, NV. August, 2001.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third '
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC. '

BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 8-1 APRIL 30, 2008

' Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Sut face Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
' Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-
' rs-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS.
' U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers (2002). HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual, Version 3.1.0. Davis, CA:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. Part 650, Chapter
' 19 of the NRCS Engineering Field Handbook: Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination.
1996. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. G.W. Hurt, Whited, P.M., and Pringle,
R.F., eds. Fort Worth, TX.
' United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey
of Rutherford County, North Carolina. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/ WebSoil Survey. aspx
' Yang, C.T. 1973. "Incipient Motion and Sediment Transport," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No HY10, October, 1973, pp 1679-1704.
Yang, C.T. 1984. "Unit Stream Power Equations for Gravel," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American
' Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 110, No. 12, December, 1984, pp 1783-1797.

0

E

L
BAKER ENGINEERING PAGE 8-2 APRIL 8, 2008

I?

H
J
fl

0

Appendix A. North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream
Identification Forms for the Logan Creek Site.

H

F

7
L

F

H

C

t
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 2122106 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 035-08-08N
Evaluator: AB Site: Logan Creek Longitude: 083-03-48W
Total Points: Other
Stream Is at least Intermittent County: Jackson e.g. Quad Name: Cashiers
If t 19 or erennial if a 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Absent ` Weak Moderate Strong
1B. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 ($J
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
98 Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 :5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes =
"Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Wwrirninnv' ie,.kfm.t - 11O 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 3p
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = .5
t^. Rinlnnv 1c11hf f.1= on.C? 1
20 . Fibrous roots In channel 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 .5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 .5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1?_ 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/f ingus. I 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items 20 anti 21 focus on the presence or upiana plants, item za focuses on me presence of aquauu ui wnumlu pieu.n.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
rvorin uarouna uivision or water tauainy - Stream Iclentitication t-orm; version 3.1
Date: 2122106 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 03548-08N
Evaluator: AB Site: Logan Creek -Wet,. Longitude: 083-03-48W
Total Points: Other '
Stream Is at least Intermittent County: Jackson e.g. QuadName• Cashiers
if a 19 or perennial if a 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ?l•`? Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1°. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Sall texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplaln 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 8 Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 .5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = s
man-made ancttes are not rated: see discussions in manual
.
O5 i
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal=
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water In channel - d or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes
C. Bloloov (Subtotal= IO 1
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants In channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1_.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton co 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteda/fungus. 0 6.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in stmambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- items zu and zi tocus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

1
1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 2/22106 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 035-08-08N
Evaluator. AB Site: Logan Creek u`r 1 Longitude: 083-0348W
Total Points: Other
Stream is at feast intermittent Lf b'Ci County: Jackson e.g. quad Name: Cashiers
if 2:19 or perennial if;-* 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Z? ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrellc floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 3
9° Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5.
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
8 Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
11 1-1-04r 1nnv lo..? t - GI
'.F - - r--__?.
14. Groundwaterflowldisaharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 .5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =1.5
1, Rinlnnv rc??L+.,+el = lf7 1
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 15 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items zu ano •11 focus on me presence or uplena planes, nmn [a ?owum wi Ism pi-1- - ayuou.. u, w-mw Fj -l.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 2122106 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 035-0848N
Evaluator: AB Site: Logan Creek - VT?_ Longitude: 083-03-48W
Total Points: Other
Stream Is at least intennittent County: Jackson
e.g. QuadNeme Cashiers
it 19 or erenniat ift 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1°. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Acflvelrelic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 3
9° Natural levees 0 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No 00
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal= (oA i
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, jr
Water in channel - d or rowan season 0 1 2 3?
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment an plants or debris 0 .5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wreck lines) 0 .5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No 410) Yes =1.5
r.- Rininav fSuhtntal =
20b. Fibrous rots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants In channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 04 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0. 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ---co 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- items zu and zi mrus on the presence or upiana plants, rem zu tocuses on the presence or equauc or weuano plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 2/22106 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 035-08-OBN
Evaluator: AS Site: Logan Creek - tifr S Longitude: 083-03-48W
Total Points: 41.5 other
Stream is at least Intermittent County: Jackson e.g. Quad Name: Cashiers
ltz 19 orperenniel Ifa 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 25? 1 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1°. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Actlve/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent aliuvlal deposits 0 1 2 3
9° Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 i 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = s
Man-made ditches are not rated; see/discussions in manual
Q 71
v - -.7J \-------- -
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water In channel -dry or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No 0 Yes =1.5
('_ Rininnv rc„+,+„+sl - ?.CJ 1
204. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants In channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 .5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. D 0.5 1 1.5
5-67-Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items zo amt z7 tocus on rite presence ar upiano piams, item Y2f rocuses on ine presence V1 04U ?, waum,? ++,auu.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 2122106 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 035-OB-OBN
Evaluator: AB Site: Logan Creek - Lrr+ Longitude: 083-03-48W
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least Intermittent 7j o . b County: Jackson e.g. Quad Name: Cashiers
If a 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ?,?) Absent Weak Moderate _ Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 Q
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 0 1 2 63)
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
g e Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 CO 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvrtrninnv tSrnhtntni = 6.91
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 G)
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
1B. Organic debris Ilnes or plies (Wrack lines) 0 .5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No Yes =1.5
r'. Rininnv tc„t.t„tfli = -1.0 t
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21b. Rooted plants In channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 .5 1 1.5
26. Mecrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 %§) 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
26. Iron oxidizing bacteda/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
items zu ano z'i tocus on me presence of upiano punts, item za rocuses on me presence ut aquaoc u, waunnu p,anu.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
' Date: 2122106 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 035-08-08N
Evaluator: AB Site: Logan Creek - UT-CGl Longitude: 083-03-48W
t Total Points: J
Stream is at least intermittent b
County: Jackson Other
e.g. Quad Name: Cashiers
if a 19 orperenniai t1 a 30

1

C
1
[l

A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong -
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: dfne-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soli texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Actlve/rellc floodplain 0 1 2 3 .
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2.
9 8 Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 Q 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes
'Man-made ditches are not rated. see discussions in manual
..J -• - -?? 1---.-
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
3
15. Water In channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 lJ
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 .5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 Q 1.5
1 B. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 1.5
r ar„i.,n%y - "I .V2
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants In channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 ro-V 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton J 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5

29 . Wetland plants in streambed %
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item ze focuses on ufe presence or aquauc ur weualw N401 atm.
'
Notes: (use back side of this forth for additional notes.) Sketch:

1

u

L7
Appendix B. US Fish and Wildlife Service Concurrence Letter

1
1

H

J
r.

1

1
FEB.28.2007 1:45PM N0.200 P.2
- w

i
1

1

J
1

1
Ms. Lori Beckwith
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801.-5006
Dear Ms. Beckwith;
H D
F E B 2 2 2007
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior on the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Public Notice (PN) of an Individual Permit Application
(IPA) submi"d by Lonesome, Valley Development, LLC, roprescated,by Mr. ClementRiddle of
ClearWater.Env#ronmental Consultants, Inc., to develop 613 acres fox a residential development
east of Cashiers in Jackson County, North Carolina. On Marti 25; 2005; we received a letter- '
from Mr. Riddle requesting information about the project site, and we provided comments to that
letter on April 22, 2005. Information for this report is based on a review of the IPA and the PN
issued by the Corps and comments provided in our original response letter. The report is
submitted in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act; Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C, 661-667e); and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description - According to the information provided, Lonesome Valley Development,
LLC, is proposing to construct a residential development and associated amenities on 613 acres
of a 788-acre tract of land (Phase II of the Lonesome Valley residential subdivision). The
613-acre tract is primarily forested and contains Logan Creek, numerous unnamed tributaries to
Logan Creek, and 0.6 acre of wetlands. Several areas of high-elevation granitic domes are also
located within the project area. To complete the project, the applicant is proposing to impact
about 0.013 acre of wetlands and 444 linear feet (it) of stream channels. All of the impacts of
this project are associated with the construction of road crossings. On-site mitigation, in the
form of stream and buffer preservation and stream restoration, is proposed to compensate for
project impacts,
The PN. state
? that a previous Nationwide Permitwaa issued iri Jta.Iy,' 200S.?for impacts dssaoiated
with the development of Phasel? of the Lonesome Valley residential ?ibclivision. 'Tfie
construction of Phase I resulted im1461f of strearn-channel impacts and 0.03 a,cre'of wetland
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Weat
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 21, 2007
1
FEB.28.2007 1:46PM
N0.200 P.3
impacts. No information regarding compensatory mitigation for these impacts was provided in
the PN.
Federally Listed Species - After reviewing the information provided, we agree with Clearwater
Environmental's survey results and concur with their conclusion that no listed species occur on
the site. We do not believe any endangered or threatened species will be affected by the
proposed project; therefore, the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered., (2) this action is subsequently modified in a, manner that was not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may
be affected by the identified action.
Fish and Wildlife Resources -We are concerned about the direct impacts to the 0.013 acre of
wetlands and 4441f of streams and the secondary impacts to the remaining streams, wetlands,
and forested areas on the subject property. According to the 404 (b)(1) guidelines, no discharge
or fill material shall be permitted in streams or wetlands if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge that would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR
230.10); therefore, we recommend the following measures to help minimize project impacts:
Use grassed swales in place of curb and gutter and on-site storm-water
management (i.e., bioretention areas) that will result in no net change in the
hydrology of the watershed. Without proper planning, this development will
create impervious surfaces (such as roofs, roads, and parking lots) that will
collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and quickly
transmit them to receiving waters. Therefore, all stone water outlets should
drain through a vegetated upland area prior to reaching any stream or wetland
area. Sufficient retention designs should be implemented to allow for the
slow discharge of storm water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of
storm water surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical
discharges.
2. Preserve and/or restore forested riparian buffers. Given the close proximity of
this project to aquatic resources and the increase in impervious surface area
that will occur as a result of the development, we are concerned about the loss
and lack of riparian buffers. Forested riparian buffers, a minimum of 100 feet
wide along perennial streams and 50 feet wide along intermittent streams,
should be created and/or maintained along all aquatic areas. Riparian buffers
provide travel corridors and habitat for wildlife displaced by development. In
addition, riparian buffers protect water quality by stabilizing stream banks,
filtering storm-water runoff, and providing habitat for aquatic and fisheries
resources,
3. Install and maintain stringent measures to control erosion and sediment in
order to prevent unnecessary impacts to aquatic resources within and
downstream of the project site. Disturbed areas should be reseeded with
2
LF

?.J

FEB.28.2007 1:46PM

N0.200 P.4
'
native seed mixtures that are beneficial to wildlife. Given the close proximity
of the project area to the Pisgah National Forest, we recommend that only
' native plant species be used or, if an adequate seed source cannot be found,
that noninvasive species (such as annual rye) be used until native plants can
reestablish themselves. While many of the exotic plant species typically used
' in reclamation efforts have proven beneficial to some wildlife species, we now
know that the invasive nature of these species outweighs any short-term
erosion-control or wildlife benefits they may provide. Exotic species,
' including tall fescue (native to Eurasia), Korean and Sericea lespedeza
(eastern Asia species), redtop (a Eurasian species), Sudan grass and Bermuda
grass (native to Africa), and Kentucky bluegrass (native to Eurasia and
' northern Canada), choke out native vegetation and often result in
monocultures that prove to be of little benefit to wildlife and can be very
detrimental to the ecosystem as a whole. Additionally, avoiding invasive
' exotic species is particularly important. Tall fescue (including Kentucky 31
fescue) and Sericea le$pedeza are listed as category 1 exotic invasive plant
species on the Regional Foresters List and Ranking Structure - Invasive
' Exotic Plant Species of Management Concern for the U.S. Forest Services
Southern Region. Category 1 exotic plant species are known to be invasive
and persistent throughout all or most of their range within the Southern
' Region. They can spread into and persist in native plant communities and
displace them. Therefore, they pose a demonstrable threat to the integrity of

t the natural plant communities in the Southern Region. The use of category 1
species is prohibited on national forest land. Other nonnative fescues and
lespedezas are proving to be just as invasive.
' 4. Align all stream crossings perpendicular to the stream. At strearrl-crossing
locations where culverts will be used, the culverts should be designed to allow
for the passage of fish and other aquatic life. Culverts should be sized to
' accommodate the movement of debris and bed material within a channel
during a bank-full event. Where practicable, we recommend the use of
multiple barrels (other than the base-flow barrel), placed on or near stream
' bank-full or floodplain bench elevation in order to accommodate floodwaters
within the streams corridor. These should be reconnected to floodplain
benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by using sills on the
' upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base-flow barrel(s). Sufficient
water depth should be maintained in the base-flow barrel during low flows to
accommodate fish movement. If the culvert is longer than 401f, alternating or
' notched baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics the existing
stream pattern. This should enhance the passage of aquatic life by:
' (a) depositing sediment in the barrel, (b) maintaining channel depth and flow
regimes, and (c) providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms.
5. Keep equipment out of streams by operating from the banks in a fashion that
minimizes disturbance to woody vegetation. Equipment should be inspected
daily and should be maintained tp prgvpnt the contamination Qf surface waters
' 3
FEB.28.2007 1:46PM
N0.200 P.5
t
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All
fuels, lubricants, and other toxic materials should be stored outside the
riparian management area of the stream, in a location where the material can
be contained. Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids,
cooling system liquids, and fuel and should be cleaned before fording any
stream. Also, all fueling operations should be accomplished outside the
riparian management area.
Mitigation - As stated above, the project as proposed will impact about 4441f of streams and
0.013 acre of wetlands. To mitigate for project impacts, the applicant has proposed 37,891 if of
stream preservation, with 25-foot vegetated buffers; the restoration of about 5701f of on-site
stream channel; and the preservation of 0.587 acre of wetlands. Riparian buffers and wetland
areas will be preserved in perpetuity under restrictive covenants. Given the 85:1 ratio of
preserved stream channels, we believe the 37,891 if of stream preservation will be sufficient if
larger buffer widths are provided. We do not believe mitigation credit should be given for the
preservation of 25-foot vegetated riparian buffers. As previously stated, we recommend that
forested buffers be a minimum of 100 feet wide along perennial streams and 50 feet wide along
intermittent streams and wetlands; however, the "Stream Mitigation Guidelines" (Guidelines)
endorsed by the Corps require that a minimum 30-foot buffer be maintained for mitigation credit
from stream preservation. The Guidelines also state: "Where stand-alone stream preservation is
proposed as mitigation, additional buffer width of at least two times the base requirement may be
required." Because the streams that will be impacted appear to be "good"-quality streams and
because wider buffer widths provide increased benefits to adjacent waters, we believe the
mitigation package should provide a minimum 60-foot buffer along all preserved streams.
T'her'efore, we recommend that a minimum 60-foot riparian buffer be established and preserved
for this mitigation package to adequately compensate for the impacts to aquatic resources within
the project area.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/2583939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-05-170.
S' cerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc,
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Mr. Kevin Barnett, North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, 2090 US Hwy. 70, Swannanoa NC 28778
4

G

I

Appendix C. State and Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Concurrence Letter.

I

n

0

I
u

L

I?

H

eN QA? 4
?0? aw ws?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 12, 2007
Micky Clemmons
Buck Engineering
787 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Logan Creek, Puzzle Creek and Blockhouse Creek Stream Restorations, Jackson, Rutherford, and.
Polk Counties, ER 06-2135, ER 06-2190, and ER 06-2191
Dear Mr. Clemmons:
' Thank you for your letter of December 1, 2006, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. for the above projects.
' During the course of the survey, one site was located within the project area. The report authors have
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We
concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
' The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
' Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future
' communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
I Ll'- LW-
' teter Sandbeck
cc: Bobby Southerlin, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.

ADMINISTRATION
RESTORATION
' SURVEY & PLANNING
507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)7334763/433-5033
515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 [phone]/7154601
515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]/7154801

TO: FHWA NC Division
Donnie Brew
EEP Liaison
310 New Bern Ave., Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1418
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Ph. 828-554-6852 Fax [phone]
PROJECT(s): Phase I archeological assessment of Logan Creek stream bank
restoration in Jackson County, Puzzle Creek stream bank restoration
in Rutherford County, and Blockhouse Creek stream bank restoration
in Polk County, North Carolina.
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians would
like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed Section 106 activity
under 36 C.F.R. 800.
This office agrees with the archeologist's recommendation that no significant cultural
resources were recovered during the archeological field work.
In the event that project design plans change, this office should be notified to continue the
Section 106 review process. In the event that cultural resources or human remains are
inadvertently discovered, all work should cease and immediate Section 106 consultation
between the federal government and the sovereign government of the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians should begin.
If we can be of further service, or if you have any comments or questions, please feel free
to contact me at (828) 488=0237 ext 2.
mcerel
Tyler B. Howe
Tribal Historical Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Cc: Mickey Clemmons
J

fl
I I
0
H
I

1

DATE: 24 - January - 07

i?
u
1

Appendix D. The Environmental Data Resources - CERCLIS
report.

r?

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The EDR Radius Map
with GeoCheek
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Jackson County
Sapphire, NC 28774
Inquiry Number: 01735558.1r
August 14, 2006
RO Environmental
Data Resources Inc
The Standard in
Environmental Risk
Management Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06461
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com
FORM-NULL-ERN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------------- ES1
Overview Map----------------------------------------------------------- 2
Detail Map-------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Map Findings Summary --------------------------------------------------- 4
Map Findings----------------------------------------------------------- 6
Orphan Summary -------------------------------------------------------- 7
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum------------------------- ----------------- A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary -------------------------- ----------------- A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map------------------------- ------------------ A-5
Physical Setting Source Map ------------------------------ ------------------ A-15
Physical Setting Source Map Findings----------------------- ----------------- A-16
Physical Setting Source Records Searched------------------- ----------------- A-33
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2006 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property their respective owners.
TC01735558.1 r Page 1

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
JACKSON COUNTY
SAPPHIRE, NC 28774
^^^nA1L1ATC0
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranver
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.133700 - 35° 8' 1.3"
83.062200 - 83° 3' 43.9"
3e Mercator: Zone 17
312109.2
3889618.5
3179 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
' Target Property Map: 35083-B1 BIG RIDGE, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1991
South Map: 35083-A1 CASHIERS, NC
' Most Recent Revision: 1991
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
17

I
C

The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL------------------------- National Priority List
Proposed NPL-------------- Proposed National Priority List Sites
Delisted NPL_______________ National Priority List Deletions
NPL RECOVERY ------------- Federal Superfund Liens
CERCLIS____________________ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CERC-NFRAP--------------- CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CORRACTS----------------- Corrective Action Report
RCRA-TSDF----------------- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-LQG------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-SQG------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
ERNS________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
HMIRS_______________________ Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
US ENG CONTROLS-------- Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL--------. Sites with Institutional Controls
DOD_________________________ Department of Defense Sites
FUDS________________________ Formerly Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS__________ A Listing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT___________________ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD_________________________ Records Of Decision
UMTRA______________________ Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
ODI__________________________ Open Dump Inventory
TRIS_________________________ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA_______________________ _ Toxic Substances Control Act
FTTS________________________ FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &
Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
SSTS________________________ Section 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS------------------------- - Integrated Compliance Information System
PADS_______________________ _ PCB Activity Database System
MLTS_______________________ _ Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES______________________ _ Mines Master Index File
FINDS_______________________ Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
RAATS______________________ RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS_______________________ Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
NC HSDS____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
IMD______________________ ____ Incident Management Database
SWF/LF----------------- ----- List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI______________________ ____ Old Landfill Inventory
LUST____________________ ____ Regional UST Database
LUST TRUST____________ ____ State Trust Fund Database
UST_____________________ ____ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST_____________________ ____ AST Database
INST CONTROL -------- ---- No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
VCP_____________________ ____ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS________ _____ Drycleaning Sites
BROWNFIELDS_________ ____ Brownfields Projects Inventory
NPDES______________________ NPDES Facility Location Listing
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV ------------- Indian Reservations
INDIAN LUST________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
INDIAN UST_________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants___ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Historical Auto StationsEDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations
EDR Historical Cleaners____. EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
J

0

fl

1
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
Site Name Database(s)
ROGERS GULF CASHIERS FRMR LUST, IMD
MTN HIGH INC-FAIRFIELD LUST, IMD
NICHOLS PROPERTY LUST, IMD
CASHIERS EXXON LUST, IMD
SOUTHERN PUMP & TANK CO. LUST, IMD
FAIRFIELD SAPPHIRE VALLEY FINDS, LUST
COUNTY CLUB OF SAPPHIRE VALLE UST
ROGER'S GULF STATION UST
CASHIERS EXXON UST
STEWARTS TEXACO INC UST
TOXAWAY CONCRETE CO. UST
FRANK'S GROCERY 90 UST
CONTEL OF N.C. CENTRAL OFFICE UST
KWIK SNAK UST
D.H. SMITH UST
MCCOY'S GULF STATION UST
HAROLD A. DARGEL UST
JIM'S LANDING UST
SOUTHERN MEADOWS CONVENIENCE UST
PRICE'S GROCERY UST
SAPPHIRE COUNTRY STORE UST
L.B.M. INDUSTRIES. INC. UST
RESOURCES PLANNING CORPORATION FINDS, NPDES
CEDAR CREEK WWTP FINDS, NPDES
STUART N YOUNGBLOOD PROJECT FINDS
BOND FUEL CO. IMD
SIGNAL RIDGE MARINA - AST IMD
SIGNAL RIDGE MARINA - DRUMS IMD
BIG SHEEPCLIFF WATER SYS ICIS
BLUE RIDGE SCHOOL NPDES
WADE HAMPTON GOLF CLUB WWTP NPDES
JACKSON UTILITY WWTP NPDES
SAPPHIRE LAKES WWTP #1 NPDES
SAPPHIRE LAKES WWTP #2 NPDES
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
OVERVIEW MAP - 01735558.1 r

r

%&
- i -> ?V?
?
-

\

/
i ? ? \ ?\ ` ?• -?`? ;?\'
? ?\ -
p ?
??
v \\
\ `1 ti
?
`
k

A

I
0 1 /2 1 2 miles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance i
Power transmission lines Disposal Sites 11
Oil & Gas pipelines
National Wetland Inventory
µ_J State Wetlands
Target Property
' Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
'
A. the target property
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites

SITE NAME: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Jackson County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Sapphire NC 28774 INQUIRY #: 01735558.1r
LAT/LONG: 35.1337 / 83.0622 DATE: n August 14, 2006 ^'„^^c
DETAIL MAP - 01735558.1 r _
1, Target Property
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A Manufactured Gas Plants
r Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
p ine un --
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance 1,
-- Disposal Sites
Oil & Gas pipelines
F?1
SITE NAME: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Jackson County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Sapphire NC 28774 INQUIRY #: 01735558.1 r
LAT/LONG: 35.1337 / 83.0622 DATE: ^ August 14,'2006 n n ^^^c

1
1
1
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed NPL 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
Delisted NPL 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
NPL RECOVERY 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CERCLIS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
CERC-NFRAP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
CORRACTS 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
RCRA TSD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ERNS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
HMIRS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US ENG CONTROLS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
US INST CONTROL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
DOD 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
FUDS 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
US BROWNFIELDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
CONSENT 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROD 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
UMTRA 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ODI 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
TRIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TSCA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
FTTS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
SSTS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ICIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
PADS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
MLTS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
MINES 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FINDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RAATS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
State Haz. Waste 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC HSDS 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
IMD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
State Landfill 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
OLI 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
LUST 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
LUST TRUST 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
UST 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
AST 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
INST CONTROL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
VCP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
DRYCLEANERS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
BROWNFIELDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NPDES 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TC01735558.1 r Page 4

Search
Target Distance Total

Database Property (Miles)
< 1/8
1/8 - 1/4
1/4 - 1/2
1/2 - 1
> 1
Plotted '
TRIBAL RECORDS '
INDIAN RESERV 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
INDIAN LUST 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
INDIAN UST 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0 ,
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0

EDR Historical Auto Stations 0.750
0
0
0
0
NR
0 t
EDR Historical Cleaners 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NOTES: '
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance '
Sites may be listed in more than one database

TC01735558.1 r Page 5

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
I NO SITES FOUND

1

1
1
TC01735558.1 r Page 6

ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s)
COUNTY S107779927 BLUE RIDGE SCHOOL NC HWY 107 28736 NPDES
CASHIER 0003136771 COUNTY CLUB OF SAPPHIRE VALLE HWY 64 EAST PO BOX 1100 28717 UST
CASHIERS 5106520436 ROGERS GULF CASHIERS FRMR HIGHWAY 107 28717 LUST, IMD
CASHIERS 0001192188 ROGER'S GULF STATION HIGHWAY 107 28717 UST
CASHIERS 0003145120 CASHIERS EXXON 41 HWY 107 NORTH 28717 UST
CASHIERS 0003134807 STEWARTS TEXACO INC HWY 107/PO BOX 739 28717 UST
CASHIERS 0001192300 TOXAWAY CONCRETE CO. HWY 64 E. 28717 UST
CASHIERS 0001202969 FRANK'S GROCERY 90 HWY 64 EAST PO BOX 405 28717 UST

CASHIERS
1004551135 RESOURCES PLANNING CORPORATION
CEDAR HILL DEVELOPMENT
28717
FINDS, NPDES '
CASHIERS 5101643652 MTN HIGH INC-FAIRFIELD CHEROKEE TRAIL 28717 LUST, IMD
CASHIERS S103717720 NICHOLS PROPERTY CORNER OF US HIGHWAY 641 107 28717 LUST, IMD
CASHIERS 0001199634 CONTEL OF N.C. CENTRAL OFFICE U.S. HIGHWAY 64 28717 UST
CASHIERS S105764115 CASHIERS EXXON NC HWY 107 / US HWY 64 28717 LUST, IMD
CASHIERS 5107780762 WADE HAMPTON GOLF CLUB WWTP NC HWY 107 28717 NPDES
CASHIERS 1004547719 CEDAR CREEK WWTP NCSR 1120 28717 FINDS, NPDES
CASHIERS S105893547 SOUTHERN PUMP 8 TANK CO. SAPPHIRE VALLEY CO. CLUB 28717 LUST, IMD
CASHIERS 1009253252 BIG SHEEPCLIFF WATER SYS STATE RD 107 28717 ICIS
CHOCOWINITY 0003134178 KWIK SNAK 3570 HWY 17 8 33 28717 UST
CHOCOWINITY 0001187947 D.H. SMITH HIGHWAY 33 28717 UST
GLENVILLE 5105912019 BOND FUEL CO. HIGHWAY 107 28736 IMD
GLENVILLE 0001192572 MCCOY'S GULF STATION HIGHWAY 107 28736 UST
GLENVILLE 0001206177 HAROLD A. DARGEL HWY 107 28736 UST
GLENVILLE 0003138367 JIM'S LANDING HWY 107 28736 UST
GLENVILLE S107672100 SIGNAL RIDGE MARINA - AST 4735 NC HIGHWAY 107 28736 IMD
GLENVILLE S107672101 SIGNAL RIDGE MARINA - DRUMS 4735 NC HIGHWAY 107 28736 IMD
GLENVILLE 0003943159 SOUTHERN MEADOWS CONVENIENCE 6188 N HIGHWAY 107 28736 UST
HOT SPRINGS 0001436039 PRICE'S GROCERY RT. 1 BOX 128 28736 UST
SAPPHIRE 1007721037 FAIRFIELD SAPPHIRE VALLEY 4000 HIGHWAY 64 WEST 28774 FINDS, LUST
SAPPHIRE 0003146995 SAPPHIRE COUNTRY STORE 3 HWY 64 E 28774 UST

SAPPHIRE
0001191675 L.B.M. INDUSTRIES. INC.
P.O. BOX 40 - HIGHWAY 281
28774
UST '
SAPPHIRE S107780256 JACKSON UTILITY WWTP 4000 US HWY 64W 28774 NPDES
SAPPHIRE S107780598 SAPPHIRE LAKES WWTP #1 1600 US HWY 64 W 28774 NPDES
SAPPHIRE S107780599 SAPPHIRE LAKES WWTP #2 1600 US HWY 64 W 28774 NPDES
SW/LAKE TOXAWAY 1007726677 STUART N YOUNGBLOOD PROJECT NORTH C 281 BOHAYNEE ROAD 28774 FINDS

TC01735558.1r Page 7
G
1
1

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RES TORATION PROJECT
JACKSON COUNTY
SAPPHIRE, NC 28774
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
Latitude (North): 35.13370 - 35° 8'1.3"
Longitude (West): 83.0622 - 83° 3'43.9"
Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 17
UTM X (Meters): 312109.2
UTM Y (Meters): 3889618.5
Elevation: 3179 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Target Property Map:
Most Recent Revision:
South Map:
Most Recent Revision:
35083-B1 BIG RIDGE, NC
1991
35083-A1 CASHIERS, NC
1991
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components:
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the
geologic strata.

TC01735558.1 r Page A-1
GEOCHECKk - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
General Topographic Gradient: General ENE
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
W
Of 4f
N
W

O

>
W W
o

N

.
N

tV0

. . . O
N

. . W
o

N

. . .
N

A

N

0?

00

?p
A

j

po
A

j

V
0

a

?

N

N
- . - 1W,,
°
0

. - . - . - . - . - .
North
TIP
South
W
V
V W
T

W N
V
W
N
N

OVD N N W N W

°
? 1.,
A
t
ll W A W i
O
W V N

?
r
I
O
+
i0 tp
A
O
C w
? N N
> A N
W
O
j m
>
_N e

West I East
TP
0 1/2 1 Miles
Target Property Elevation: 3179 ft.
Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated
on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified.
TC01735558.1 r Page A-2
' GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
' the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
' and bodies of water).
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
FEMA Flood
' Target Property County Electronic Data
JACKSON, NC Not Available
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property: Not Reported
t Additional Panels in search area: Not Reported
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
' NWI Electronic
NWI Quad at Target Property Data Coveraqe
BIG RIDGE YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
' of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
AQUIFLOW®
' Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
' authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION
' MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW
Not Reported
r
C

TC01735558.1r Page A-3
GEOCHECe -PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
move more quickly through sandy-gravelly types of soils than silty-clayey types of soils.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
Era: Precambrian Category: Metamorphic Rocks
System: Precambrian
Series: Orthogneiss
Code: Ygn (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
TC01735558.1 r Page A-4
SSURGO SOIL MAP - 01735558.1 r

4

2 ,

5

1

(1 1.16 l;A lii rvui c
1. im

' Target Property
SSURGO Soil
Water

SITE NAME: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Jackson County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Sapphire NC 28774 INQUIRY #: 01735558.1 r
LAT/LONG: 35.1337 / 83.0622 DATE: ^ August 14, 2006 ^'M^^`
GEOCHECW PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil
Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information
for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns
in a landscape. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service SSURGO data.
Soil Map ID: 1
Soil Component Name: NIKWASI
Soil Surface Texture: fine sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B/D - Drained/undrained hydrology class of soils that can be
drained and are classified.
Soil Drainage Class: Very poorly. Soils are wet to the surface most of the time. Depth to
water table is less than 1 foot, or is ponded.
Hydric Status: Soil meets the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: HIGH
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 26 inches fine sandy loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.50
materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty, or 50%), silt.
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
2 26 inches 60 inches extremely Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 20.00 Max: 6.50
gravelly - materials (35 SOILS, Gravels, Min: 6.00 Min: 4.50
coarse sand pct. or less Gravels with
passing No. fines, Silty
200), Stone Gravel
Fragments,
Gravel and
Sand.
TC01735558.1 r Page A-6

1
1
1
1
1
1
i
GEOCHECW' - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 2
Soil Component Name: SAUNOOK
Soil Surface Texture: gravelly - loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth to
water table is more than 6 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: LOW
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 9 inches gravelly - loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 3.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit 50% or
200), Stone more), Elastic
Fragments, silt.
Gravel and
Sand.
2 9 inches 24 inches cobbly - sandy Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.50
clay loam materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty, or 50%), Lean Clay
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
3 24 inches Winches very cobbly - Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.50
sandy loam materials (35 SOILS, Gravels, Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Gravels with
passing No. fines, Silty
200), Stone Gravel
Fragments,
Gravel and
Sand.
TC01735558.1r Page A-7
GEOCHECKO - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 3
Soil Component Name: EDNEYVILLE
Soil Surface Texture: gravelly - fine sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth to
water table is more than 6 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: LOW
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 5 inches gravelly - fine Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
sandy loam materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit 50% or
200), Silty, or more), Elastic
Clayey Gravel silt.
and Sand.
2 5 inches 37 inches fine sandy loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty, or 50%), Lean Clay.
Clayey Gravel FINE-GRAINED
and Sand. SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), silt.
3 37 inches Winches sandy loam Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Sands with fines,
passing No. Clayey sand.
200), Silty, or COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey Gravel SOILS, Sands,
and Sand. Sands with fines,
Silt Sand.
TC01735558.1 r Page A-8

C'

C

C

GEOCHECK@ - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 4
Soil Component Name: PLOTT
Soil Surface Texture: fine sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth to
water table is more than 6 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: LOW
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 8 inches fine sandy loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 3.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit 50% or
200), Silty, or more), Elastic
Clayey Gravel silt.
and Sand.
2 8 inches 18 inches loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty, or 50%), Lean Clay.
Clayey Gravel FINE-GRAINED
and Sand. SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), silt.
3 18 inches Winches gravelly - fine Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
sandy loam materials (35 SOILS, Gravels, Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Gravels with
passing No. fines, Silty
200), Stone Gravel
Fragments,
Gravel and
Sand.
TC01735558.1 r Page A-9
GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 5
Soil Component Name: EDNEYVILLE
Soil Surface Texture: gravelly - fine sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth to
water table is more than 6 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: LOW
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 5 inches gravelly - fine Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
sandy loam materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit 50% or
200), Silty, or more), Elastic
Clayey Gravel silt.
and Sand.
2 5 inches 37 inches fine sandy loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty, or 50%), Lean Clay.
Clayey Gravel FINE-GRAINED
and Sand. SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), silt.
3 37 inches 60 inches sandy loam Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Sands with fines,
passing No. Clayey sand.
200), Silty, or COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey Gravel SOILS, Sands,
and Sand. Sands with fines,
Silt Sand.
TC01735558.1 r Page A-10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 6
Soil Component Name: EDNEYVILLE
Soil Surface Texture: gravelly - fine sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth to
water table is more than 6 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: LOW
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Pe a eability Soil Reaction
1 0 inches 5 inches gravelly - fine Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
sandy loam materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit 50% or
200), Silty, or more), Elastic
Clayey Gravel silt.
and Sand.
2 5 inches 37 inches fine sandy loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty, or 50%), Lean Clay.
Clayey Gravel FINE-GRAINED
and Sand. SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50% ,silt.
3 37 inches Winches sandy loam Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Sands with fines,
passing No. Clayey sand.
200), Silty, or COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey Gravel SOILS, Sands,
and Sand. Sands with fines,
Silt Sand.
TC01735558.1 r Page A-11
GEOCHECKS -PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 7
Soil Component Name: STATLER
Soil Surface Texture: loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth to
water table is more than 6 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: LOW
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 9 inches loam Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 7.30
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 5.10
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty 50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
2 9 inches 30 inches clay loam Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.50
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 5.10
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty 50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
3 30 inches 62 inches loam Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.00
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 5.10
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty 50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
4 62 inches 85 inches loam Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.00
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 5.10
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty 50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
TC01735558.1r Page A-12

1

GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 8
Soil Component Name: CULLOWHEE
Soil Surface Texture: fine sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B/D - Drained/undrained hydrology class of soils that can be
drained and are classified.
Soil Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly. Soils commonly have a layer with low hydraulic
conductivity, wet state high in profile, etc. Depth to water table is
1 to 3 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: HIGH
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 13 inches fine sandy loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.50
materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty, or 50%), silt.
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
2 13 inches 23 inches loamy sand Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 20.00 Max: 6.50
materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 6.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Sands with fines,
passing No. Silty Sand.
200), Stone
Fragments,
Gravel and
Sand.
3 23 inches 35 inches loamy sand Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 20.00 Max: 6.50
materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 6.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Sands with fines,
passing No. Silty Sand.
200), Stone
Fragments,
Gravel and
Sand.
4 35 inches 65 inches extremely Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 20.00 Max: 6.50
gravelly - sand materials (35 SOILS, Gravels, Min: 6.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Gravels with
passing No. fines, Silty
200), Stone Gravel
Fragments,
Gravel and
Sand.
TC01735558.1 r Page A-13
GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental
professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an
opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.
WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)
Federal USGS 1.000
Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile
State Database 1.000
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Wells Found
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
B4 NCO150176 1/2 - 1 Mile ESE
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
Al NC10004612 1/2 - 1 Mile ESE
A2 NC10004613 1/2 - 1 Mile ESE
B3 NC10004611 1/2 - 1 Mile ESE
5 NC10004509 1/2 - 1 Mile SW
6 NC10004495 1/2 - 1 Mile East
C7 NC10004508 1/2 - 1 Mile WSW
C8 NC10004507 1/2 - 1 Mile WSW
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE ELEMENT OCCURRENCES
ID Class
NC50000123 Plants
TC01735558.1r Page A-14

0

G
u

u

u
C

GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE ELEMENT OCCURRENCES
ID Class
NC50004794 Natural Community Occurrence
NC50005339 Plants
NC50005580 Natural Community Occurrence
NC50008270 Plants
NC50008484 Natural Community Occurrence
NC50009489 Non Vascular
NC50009978 Plants
NC50009990 Plants
NC50010287 Natural Community Occurrence
NC50010355 Animal
NC50011036 Natural Community Occurrence
NC50011205 Natural Community Occurrence
NC50011348 Plants
NC50013037 Animal
NC50013279 Non Vascular
NC50014790 Natural Community Occurrence
NC50016619 Plants
NC50018570 Plants
NC50019316 Natural Community Occurrence
NORTH CAROLINA SIGNIFICANT NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS DATABASE:
ID Name
4C10000796 DILLARD CANYON AND CLIFFS
NC10000800 BALD ROCK MOUNTAIN/LITTLE BALD ROCK MOUNTAIN
NC10000813 HORSEPASTURE RIVER BOG
NC10000822 HIGH HAMPTON/CHATTOOGA RIDGE NATURAL AREA
NG10000833 NIX MOUNTAIN
NC10001372 PANTHERTOWN VALLEY
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION GAME LANDS DATABASE
Site Name
NC30001061
TC01735558.1 r Page A-15

1
i
1 -
-
.
.
, \
. NC

.

0 tr4 V2 1 Miles
County Boundary
Major Roads
Groundwater Flow Direction
Wildlife Areas
Contour Lines
l Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location Natural Areas
Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater
(_G v; Groundwater Flow Varies at Location
Rare & Endangered Species
® Water Wells
© Public Water Supply Wells
0 Cluster of Multiple Icons

SITE NAME: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Jackson County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Sapphire NC 28774 INQUIRY #: 01735558.1r
LAT/LONG: 35.1337 / 83.0622
r n ^ n c
DATE: August 14, 2006

U,

Appendix E. Existing Conditions Data
1
1
1
O
O
O

c??mm O
O

lf)
o
o
0

O
O
U')

o
(D o
_ O

L- O
0. I O

CY
C )

U)
/ C:) o
O
ca
M Cl)
W
O
?L O

N
1
() O
O
O
N
? O

0

O
r-
°
O
LO
O

C ) LO C) U") 0 LO C) LO C )
C Y) 00 co Qc) LO U ')
M c? ce) co M M M co M
U014BAal3
v o0
M
CT1 ? i o
_

y O

W
N LL
M
C
C)
r =3
Y
W ? 1 C
1 CO
C
' 1
1 o U
N
N L I! ?

Z
0
1 0

Q
N
? J
{
C 1
3 r
+ { o 0
w LO o +r
as ` 0 i cn
v

N CD
C i 0)

N o
N co
0

CL° o
y '

w ?

(? CD
CO
? v I

v o
0
CO 'T N o 00 C O
ti ti ti (D ( 0
M M co M M M
°'
w U014BAG13
M
M
N
M
x
O
M
CG ?
Y
C d
'r O
Z ?
O
x J
Q ?: C
3 O
T
r
r
N O
O
Q M,
N
N
N
r? O
3x L)
wloc
U
rte'
C
O
N
T
O
O
T
O
00
O
O
O
V
O
N
O
U') M N T O O O?
? ti ti? ti ti 0 0 0
T T T T T T T T T
M C7 C'7 C'7 Ch M C+? C7 C'7
uOI)UAG13
c
O
r
t6
N

co
LO
ti
LO
ll)
LO
LO
C14 ° (0 (0 (0 cNo
M M M M M M
U014enal3

Y
d
d
L
U
c
ca
O
J
C
O
0
O
r
N
C
O
R
r..
N
C
O
'w
V
d
N
cA
N
O
L
U
O
O
CL
W ?
m
O

M O
N O
?
Q
y +„ o
w
m M I ?

W M ? N ?
i ?
co
p Y

=
m

N O
-j i O
In

3 N r
o r
Lc)
N
+
N O

m
n
X
j r
O
0 r
o
o

N
N i N
LL.
'r
m 0 L I
3 M o
a
v

w
U
J
0
O Lo o LO o LO
ao r- 1- (0 CO LO
p M M M M M M
O
uoi;ena13

t
r
4 ? r k
y ?
W ?
W ?
w -'
? M
"7
N
r, Y
m
0
J
0
0
a ¢' M O
> N
Qp-- ?
N
N
N
L .Y p O
o3M
v
N
LL Lr)
U
O
LO
N
O
O
N
N
c
O
CL
O
O
LL
4
7
Y
C
co
co
4
0

r-

O

' O
O

0
LO
O
° (D ? o 0
rw, M M M M M M 0 (D
cG UOIIEA813
V
G-.
O
z

y M
m Ize)
--
co O
Q
O
y ?? 0
W LL
?. M
m ? 4
M

(i] N j Y

co
O Y In
° 4
V

co m

J
^^
Y 1^
L
O

O /
T?
O)
N
?
O _

z N O
1 III
^ M i f
LO
OC)
N N
i
y .E 0 ;

f/1 LO
i O ; N

'L'O^
v? ; N
m I

r
y '
j
i
y T LL
LO
Lo

(0 IT N N
O
y O 0p
r-- O O O O (c)

? y
C T T T T T
M M C7 M M T
C'7
UOIIBA813
?y
t r,f P ?
o^_
a1
vY"
?. 11 ,
?k
s +, ,
AZ?
< rr-
SAT
r4;
CIA
O
w N
w .o
M
?i
w
O
x?
x?
m
QI?
M
,It
M
N
w ? M
M
N
ccS
y
s.
Q ?
W
O N
O ?
w
O
C
O
Q
O
O
LL
0
7
Y
C
(6
m
a
LO
Cl)

p

cn
LO
0
M
LO
0)
N
Lf)
00
N
LO
00 (0 'IT N O 00 N
CD CD LO
M c') Cl) Cl) M co
UOIJUA013

I ?
O

L7? M
LL.
^
x
M
0
co

LLJ 00

Z ?

+ .j
: g

CL x o cn
c?

v v

N
I
; o

?
Oc M
-
w ?

L"n
y ?j
' f
^
O
N
r

y LO M r O ti L
Q0 CO CO U-) LO O
m
r y
? M M M M M M
:G
r? uoijenal3
v ?
x

(C) c
0.'I n O
O M
I ?
!

>
? O
O
LL
W
Li. O
m ;

c
W _ O
N (0
co

O Y
d
Q
m _ V
= C I ,
Q? m
cn
p
O
0

Q v o ;

t O
Lt
00 m
d r N
X Q
O

s
u. .r
?
O O
O

alp - N

o

?3 M c i ?
O :
CL

LL.
i CD
N
i ,
O

y O LO O In O
I? I? O CO LO M
? ? M M M M M M
LL. UOIIBA813
0
I

n

Appendix F. Reference Reach Data

I
I

M O
r ?
O
a
O
W
m
O
~ p
O ;

O O
LL
,
4
> LO M
N N
W O
o
LL

CO ; C
c0
?

N L
w U LO <
N
C
c9

N J

Oo A '

p '

v
`n
a =
3 LO

O
+L o
o
co

?
> d r
LL N
Y '
CO Vl ,
N
N ? L

LL
C11

Q) ;

W N LO L1) O LO VJ LO
0 6 O
O 0 6
6 o
O O O
r ? O

uOIJeAG13 ?
c
O
f F ? ??atf.
R
N

A I
u
N
O
O
r-
00
N
N
co
cq
T
0
N
Lr)
.- o
c
0
CL

O
O
p C:) LL

?
U")
ce)
: m

, o
M

N

C
O
O
N
LO
r
O
, r
LO
• O
O
O
N O M W CO
O O O O O m m
UOIIBAG13
- - - - -
-
- - - ---
---- C)
LO
i
C? m
co
o

}

? \ O
?
O
J
O,

L I
/
C
O
I

V
M
C)
!

O
°
L 4

o
LO

C)
co

0

co
°
I--
o o rn
o ?
- - C)
UOIIBAG13

Appendix G. Logan Creek Particle Size Data
I?

0

1
1

?I

1

I
r,

71,

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C H
0 .-0
V w+
3
d ?
? r
U)
ao
'N N
t V
M
Y =
? V
U m
c ?
Z
rnm
o
J a

m
0 0 0 0
O O O O
O m co 0 0 0
O O O
co CO It
aauid IUODJad
O
Cl
O
O
r
O
O
O
O
O
s-
E
m
N
O (n
R
a

0
O
00 0 0-0 0 0 0
O O O O
M N <-
ti
O
O
N
O
r
It
C
O
.Q
a)
t
U
ca
a)
c
7
O
U
a)
a)
a
c
ca
0)
O
J
cn
a)
C.
E
ca
c
a)
E
v
m
U)
rn
c
O
Y
N
a)
L
U
c
N
m
O
J
C'7
'IT
N
CA
O
i
N
U
a)
O
Cl.
J

a ?
o X
0 0
? o
VJ b
Q N
a ?
i. '
LC a
Qw ?
Y ?
a
d y
L
? U
a. c
0
a

a?
U
t-.

N N
> U

--- --:. _ U_...._.

0
0
0
0
b
0
0
0
0
D
0
U
0
0
E
E >
co
_o U
a?
N_
N
U
t
co
a

O
cd
U
0
00 C, 0 o o ° 0 0 0 0 0
00 I-
;UOOIQd
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?r U
O N
? X
? O
a
A ?
? N
4
y Cd
U.
0
P, a..
a
d ae
E ^?
>
U
0
P-.4

a

- U U

0
0
0
0
b
7
O
O
O
O
N
,D
O
U
0
0
o U
o.
b
0
a
r,
0
0
00 O C) O C O 0O O O O O
C2 00 M
lu33'Qd
C)
0
c
a ?
?. o
y cc
A u
R ?
a -14
G N
U

g9
1 __.. _-.. .. _. - 7--

tu
U
7-.
a
3
U
7

? t-.
N

. _
..E ?- - _
--

O O 00 ?
O
V7
xuaa.?ad
O O O O

? I
-o
0
0
0
0
a?
.o
0
U
0
0
E >
? U
N
L/]
N
U
ca
a
C
V)
O
i O
O O
U