20090049 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20090109

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Alleghany County, North Carolina
SCO ID # 070708801
NCEEP Project ID # 92343
1
1

Prepared for:
RECEIVED

DELI: Z <
1 NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

' NCDENR-EEP P ; 2?'
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 1H-103
Raleigh, NC 27606 JAN
q 2.00
DENR - `IWATER DUALRY
?I?E T LANX' AND STQRIJV1,,ATER 3RAhCH

Restoration Plan
December 12, 2008

1

1
1
u

1

J

1

1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Alleghany County, North Carolina
Restoration Plan prepared by:
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
Project Manager: Becky Ward
8386 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615-5088
Ph: 919-870-0526
Fax: [phone]
The
Catena
Group
The Catena Group Inc.
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Ph: 919-732-1300
Fax: [phone]
Becky L. Ward, P
Michael G. Wood,
ey`eoteaoe
??k CA
ae..e?o
s! C??S
13344 /12t,
.
r`?'•P'1 M?o
ac09

1
t

r

1

1

1

I Executive Summary
' Glade Creek is a perennial stream located within the "Upper New" sub-basin of the New
River Basin in Alleghany County, North Carolina. The project site is at elevation 2574
feet MSL. The reach of Glade Creek and UT to Glade Creek to be restored is
approximately 2029 feet in length owned by Sharon W. Beck. The North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has a project on Glade Creek located
upstream of the Beck property. These two projects will provide localized benefits on
Glade Creek and are two links in the overall goal of watershed restoration for this basin.
' Existing Glade Creek is an incised gravel bed C4/G4 stream. The 8.0 square mile
watershed contributing drainage to the stream restoration segment is located in a rural
setting. The land adjacent to Glade Creek is currently under forestry production of White
' Pine trees. Throughout the restoration stream length the floodplain has an average width
of approximately 250 feet. The existing stream's width ranges from 21 feet to 39 feet at
the top of bank with steep side slopes undergoing heavy erosion in the outsides of bends.
1 The channel is very sinuous with severe bends and has incised throughout the reach
approximately two feet.
' One unnamed tributary (UT) to Glade Creek is included in the project. UT to Glade
Creek is a degraded B4/C4 stream with a watershed area of approximately 0.016 square
1 miles (10 acres). The watershed to UT to Glade Creek is being significantly impacted by
cattle. The cattle have access to the stream and sediment is being deposited downstream
within the project reach due to this disturbance. The existing tributary's width ranges
from 9.5 feet to 15.5 feet at the top of bank and the channel incises to a depth of
approximately 3 feet adjacent to Glade Creek.
TL_
' iuc iwwiauvii r
.,vaib ivi HUS YivJcct aic.
¦ Improve water quality with the construction of stable stream banks and the
establishment of a protective buffer.
' ¦ Improve the community structure of the buffer.
¦ Improve the stream function and habitat with the connection of the channelized
and incised stream back to its floodplain.
¦ Restore long-term stability with the restoration of channel pattern, profile and
dimension.
¦ Improve in-stream habitat with the installation of root wads, constructed riffles
' and rock cross vanes to enhance pool depths.
¦ Removal of exotic invasive species.
' The project objectives will include:
¦ The restoration of 1580 linear feet of Priority I in order to raise the stream
elevation, reconnect the floodplain, restore pattern, and re-establish channel
' dimension on Glade Creek and 441 linear feet on UT to Glade Creek.
¦ Restoration of 0.16 acres of wetlands by improved hydrology.
¦ Enhancement of 0.13 acres of wetlands by planting of wetland vegetation.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. iii Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008
Preservation of 0.79 acres of existing jurisdictional wetlands.
Establish a riparian buffer with a variety of native vegetation for an improved
community for a distance that ranges from 30 to 100 feet in width. Buffer
enhancement on 5.37 acres along the stream length will be established with the
planting of riparian vegetation.
Within the buffer the removal of exotic invasives will be completed with
acceptable methods to reclaim the invasive areas with native species.
Summa
Stream Reach Existing Length (feet) Proposed Length (feet)
Glade Creek 2055 1580
UT Glade Creek 145 441
Total 2200 2021
The total proposed stream length of the project is 2051 linear feet. The lack of vegetation
due to farming practices over time has resulted in unstable stream banks and down
cutting of the channel The reduction of stream length is appropriate for the Glade Creek.
The stressors over time have caused stream incision and very sharp meander bends that
have lengthened the flow path resulting in an unstable sinuosity of 1.6. Introducing
longer radius of curvatures to establish a better pattern and vertical grade controls will
help restore the system towards pre-disturbed conditions.
The project will also include 0.16 acres of wetland restoration, wetland enhancement of
0.16 acres, and preservation of 0.76 acres. The restoration project will impact 0.032
acres (Wetland 6) of the existing wetlands on the project site that are located within the
existing channel. These impacts consist of grading for the new channel and floodplain.
Through its Local Watershed Planning program, EEP focuses resources in specific 14-
digit hydrologic units in order to address critical watershed issues. This process involves
conducting a detailed assessment of the condition of the watershed, involving the local
community in identifying solutions to water quality, aquatic habitat and flooding
problems, and working to get consensus solutions implemented, preferably within
prioritized sub-watersheds. EEP's Little River/Brush Creek Local Watershed Plan
(March 2007) identified the sub-watershed Middle Glade Creek I, where this project is
located, as a priority sub-watershed. Stream restoration along this portion of Glade Creek
is expected to help alleviate water quality degradation issues by establishing riparian
buffers and preventing nutrient and sediment input, and is expected to provide
substantially improved aquatic habitat.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. iv Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
' 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Directions to Project Site ......................................................................................................... 9
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code ............................................................................................... ... 9

' 1.3 NCDWQ River Basin Designations ......................................................................................... 9
1.4 Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................. 10
2.0 Watershed Characterization ........................................................................................................ . 10

' 2.1 Drainage Area .......................................................................................................................
2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality ....................................................................... . 10
. 10
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils ......................................................................................... . 10
2.3.1 Physiography .............................................................................................................. . 10
' 2.3.2 Geology ...................................................................................................................... . 11
2.3.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................ . 11
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ..................................................................... . 11
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species ........................................................................................... . 12
' 2.6 Federally Protected Species ..................................................................................................
2.6.1 Site Evaluation Methodology ...................................................................................... . 12
. 12
2.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................... . 13
' 2.6.2.1 Species Description and Biological Conclusion ................................................ . 13

' 2.7 Federal Species of Concern ..................................................................................................
2.8 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................
2.9 Potential Constraints .............................................................................................................
2.9.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ............................................................................. . 14
. 15
. 15
. 15

'

' 2.9.2 Site Access ................................................................................................................... 15
2.9.3 Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.9.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass ........................................................................................ 16
3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions) .................................................................................. 16
3.1 Channel Classification ........................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Discharge ...............................................................................................................................16
3.3 Channel Morphology ............................................................................................................. 16
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment ................................................................................................ 17
3.5 Bankfull Verification ............................................................................................................. 17
3.6 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 17
3.6.1 Piedmont Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest .................................................................... 17
'

'

'

'

' 3.6.2 Mounte Alluvial Forest ............................................................................................
3.6.3 Maintained/Disturbed Communities ............................................................................
4.0 Reference Streams .......................................................................................................................
4.1 Basin Creek .................................................................................. ............................
.............
4.1.1 Watershed Characterization .........................................................................................
4.1.2 Channel Classification .................................................................................................
4.1.3 Discharge .....................................................
4.1.4 Channel Morphology ...................................................................................................
4.1.5 Channel Stability Assessment ......................................................................................
4.1.6 Bankfull Verification ................................................
4.1.7 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................
4.1.7.1 Vegetative Communities for Basin Creek ..........................................................
4.1.7.1.1. Montane Alluvial Forest .............................................
4.1.7.1.2. Acidic Cove Forest ...................................................................................
4.2 UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach ..............................................................................
4.2.1 Watershed Characterization .........................
................................................................
4.2.2 Channel Classification ................................................................................................. 19
19
19
19

19
20

20
21

21
21

22
22
22

22
' Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 5 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008
5.0
6.0
7.0
4.2.3 Discharge ..................................................................................................................... 23
4.21. Channel Morphology ................................................................................................... 23
4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment ...................................................................................... 23
4.2.6 Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................... 23
4.2.7 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 23
4.2.7.1 Vegetative Communities of UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach .............. 23
4.2.7.1.1. Acidic Cove Forest ................................................................................... 23
4.2.7.1.2. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest ................................................................ 24
4.3 UT to South Fork Cane Creek ............................................................................................... 24
4.3.1 Watershed Characterization ......................................................................................... 24
4.3.2 Channel Classification ...............................................
4.3.3 Discharge ..................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.4 Channel Morphology ................................................................................................... 25
4.3.5 Channel Stability Assessment ...................................................................................... 25
4.3.6 Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................... 25
4.3.7 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 25
4.3.7.1 Vegetative Communities of UT to South Fork Cane Creek ................................ 25
4.3.7.1.1. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest ................................................................ 25
4.3.7.1.2. Fallow Field .............................................................................................. 26
Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions) ................................................................................ 26
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 26
5.2 Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands ................................................................................................. 28
5.2.1 Hydrological Characterization of Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands ................................... 28
5.3 Groundwater Modeling of Restoration Site ........................................................................... 28
5.4 Surface Water Modeling at Restoration Site .......................................................................... 28
5.5 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site ................................................................................. 28
5.6 Soil Characterization of Existing Wetland ............................................................................. 29
5.7 Soil Characterization of Non-Jurisdictional Wetland ............................................................. 30
5.7.1 Taxonomic Classification of Wetlands and Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands .................... 30
5.7.2 Soil Profile Descriptions .............................................................................................. 30
5.7.3 Hydraulic Conductivity ................................................................................................ 30
5.7.4 Organic Matter Content ............................................................................................... 30
5.7.5 Bulk Density ................................................................................................................ 30
5.8 Plant Community Characterization ........................................................................................ 30
Reference Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 30
6.1 Hydrological Characterization ............................................................................................... 31
6.1.1 Gauge Data Summary .................................................................................................. 31
6.2 Soil Characterization ............................................................................................................. 31
6.2.1 Taxonomic Classification ............................................................................................ 31
6.2.2 Profile Description ....................................................................................................... 31
6.2.3 Hydraulic Conductivity ................................................................................................ 31
6.2.4 Organic Matter Content ............................................................................................... 31
6.2.5 Bulk Density ................................................................................................................ 31
6.3 Plant Community Characterization ........................................................................................ 31
6.3.1 Community Description ............................................................................................... 31
6.3.2 Basal Area .................................................................................................................... 32
Project Site Restoration Plan ........................................................................................................ 32
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .............................................................................. 32
7.1.1 Designed Channel Classification ................................................................................. 32
7.1.2 Target Wetland Communities/Buffer Communities ..................................................... 34
7.2 Sediment Transport Analysis ................................................................................................. 34
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 6 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
Dcccmbcr 12, 2008

' 7.2.1 Methodology
'

'

'

'

' 7.21. Calculations and Discussion ........................................................................................
7.3 HEC-RAS Analysis .. ...........................................................................................................
7.3.1 Hydrologic Trespass ....................................................................................................
7.4 Hydrological Modifications ...................................................................................................
7.4.1 Narrative of Modifications ...........................................................................................
7.4.2 Scaled Schematic of Modifications ..............................................................................
7.5 Soil Restoration .....................................................................................................................
7.5.1 Narrative & Soil Preparation and Amendment .............................................................
7.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration ...................................................................................
7.6.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration ..................................................................
7.6.2 On-site Invasive Species Management .........................................................................
8.0 Performance Criteria ....................................................................................................................
8.1 Streams ..................................................................................................................................
8.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................
8.3 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................
8.4 Schedule/Reporting ...............................................................................................................
9.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 35
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
37
38
38
39
39
39
40
' 10.0 Tables

' Table 1. Glade Creek Restoration Structure and Objectives
Table 2. Drainage Areas
Table 3. Land Use of the Glade Creek Watershed
Table 4. Morphological Table for Glade Creek
' Table 5. Morphological Table for UT to Glade Creek - "B" Type Channel
Table 6. Morphological Table for UT to Glade Creek - "C" Type Channel
Table 7. BEHUNBS and Sediment Export Estimate for Glade Creek

' Table 8. BEHI/NBS and Sediment Export Estimate for UT to Glade Creek
Table 9. Planting Plan Species List
Table 10. Particle Size Distribution - Glade Creek
Table 11. Particle Size Distribution - UT to Glade Creek Type "B"
Table 12. Particle Size Distribution - UT to Glade Creek Type "C"
Table 13. Sediment Transport Validation Glade Creek

' Table 14. Sediment Transport Validation UT to Glade Creek Type "B"
Table 15. Sediment Transport Validation UT to Glade Creek Type "C"
11.0 Figures

'

' Figure 1. Glade Creek Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Glade Creek Site Aerial Vicinity Map
Figure 3. Glade Creek Site Restoration Objectives
Figure 4. Glade Creek Site Watershed Map
Figure 5. Glade Creek Site Aerial Watershed Map
Figure 6. Glade Creek Site NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 7. Glade Creek Site Hydrologic Features
Figure 8. Glade Creek Site Wetland Delineation Map
Figure 9. Glade Creek Site Vegetative Communities

'

' Figure 10. Reference Site Basin Creek Vicinity Map
Figure 11. Reference Site Basin Creek Watershed Map
Figure 12. Reference Site Basin Creek NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 13. Reference Site Basin Creek Vegetative Communities
Figure 14. Reference Site UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 15. Reference Site UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach Watershed Map

' Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 7 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008
I
Figure 16. Reference Site UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 17. Reference Site UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach Vegetative Communities
Figure 18. Reference Site UT to South Fork Cane Creek Vicinity Map
Figure 19. Reference Site UT to South Fork Cane Creek Watershed Map
Figure 20. Reference Site UT to South Fork Cane Creek NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 21. Reference Site UT to South Fork Cane Creek Vegetative Communities
Figure 22. Reference Site Wetland Determination Sample Locations with Gauge Locations
Figure 23. Typical Design Cross Sections Glade Creek - Upper Section
Figure 24. Typical Design Cross Sections Glade Creek - Lower Section
Figure 25. Typical Design Cross Sections UT to Glade Creek-'B" Type Channel
Figure 26. Typical Design Cross Sections UT to Glade Creek- "C" Type Channel
12.0 Restoration Plans
Sheet 1. Glade Creek Existing Conditions Station 0+35 to 9+80
Sheet 2. Glade Creek Existing Conditions Station 9+80 to 23+08
Sheet 3. Glade Creek Restoration Plan Station 1+00 to 8+12
Sheet 4. Glade Creek Restoration Plan Station 8+12 to 16+80
Sheet 5. Glade Creek and UT to Glade Creek Planting Plan
Sheet 6. Longitudinal Profile Glade Creek
Sheet 7. Longitudinal Profile UT to Glade Creek
13.0 Appendices
Appendix 1. Restoration Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Restoration Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3. Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. Restoration Site Cross Sections
Appendix 5. Reference Sites Photographs
Appendix 6. Reference Sites NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 7. Reference Sites Cross Sections
Appendix 8. Reference Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 9. Hydrologic Gauge Data Summary, Groundwater and Rainfall Information
Appendix 10. Restoration Site Soil Boring Location Map and Log
Appendix 11. Boundary Survey and Conservation Easement Dedication Map
Appendix 12. Categorical Exclusion Approved Check List
Appendix 13. Historical Photos

1

Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 8 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft ,
Dcccmbcr 121,21008
1.0 Introduction
The North-Carolina-Ecosystem--Enhancement Program -(EEP)-will=completea-stream restoration-
project along Glade Creek of approximately 1,580 linear feet of stream restoration along the
main channel, in Allegheny County, North Carolina. Approximately 449 linear feet of an
unnamed tributary to Glade Creek will also be restored. The restoration portion of the project
begins approximately 500 feet downstream of the crossing with Sheriff Road and extends to the
fence_liriieriilicutar.tc_tl fitrrt?afi_it_rutfi at-tilafie cf_tie h11_riext tciBarett Rri?d/?rix.
Ridge Road.
Along with the restoration of the channel, approximately .92 acres of riparian wetland will be
preserved/enhanced and approximately 0.16 acres of riparian wetland will be restored adjacent to
Glade Creek.
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The Glade Creek Project Site is located approximately 4.4 miles southeast along US-21 from the
' center of Sparta in Allegheny County, North Carolina. From Raleigh, take Interstate 40 West to
US-421 North (exit 188) and go 27.5 miles. Next take Interstate 77 North (exit 265A) for 10
mites before making a refit onto _115* T-Nbrih towards-Roaring Gap/Sparta. After traveling-n.-91
miles on US-21, up the mountain road past Roaring Gap and past the Blue Ridge Parkway, take a
' right onto Sheriff Road. After 0.2 miles on Sheriff Road cross over Glade Creek and turn left
onto Barrett Road/Fox Ridge Road and the upstream site access is a path through the pine trees
approximately 200 feet ahead on the left. The coordinates of this location are: 36° 28'37" N and
P 03' 40 11 WA .
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) uses a multi-tiered system to divide and sub-divide
the country's watersheds into successively smaller hydrological units. Each hydrologic unit is
identified_by.a- nigne.hy*ologic unit.:cod,e (,WC), consistingof various-numbers of -digits
depending on the level of classification within the hydrologic unit system. Under the USGS
system, the New River basin has only one 8-digit hydrologic unit and that is called the Upper
' New and its RUC number is 05050001.
The 8-digit units are further sub-divided into smaller 14-digit hydrologic units that are used for
' smaller scale planninng. The Glade Creek Project -Site is located in .the 14 digit HUC
05050001030020.
1.3 NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) uses a two-tiered system to divide the
state into watershed units. The state is divided into seventeen major river basins with each basin
' further subdivided into sub-basins (NCDWQ 6-digit sub-basins). The project area is located
within the "Upper New" sub-basin 05-07-03 of the New River Basin (DWQ 2005). This area is
part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 05050001 of the Ohio Region. The "Upper New" river basin
covers 2,900 square miles (7,511 square kilometers).
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 9 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008
1.4 Project Vicinity Map
The project vicinity -map -is -included -in Section 11, Figure =1. An-aerial vicinity -map -is -included
on Section 11, Figure 2.
2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1 Drainage Area
The-drainage-area -tor Glade-L``.r-e-ek-is-approximate-ly-8:00 square miles at-the downstream limit of
the project. The watershed consists approximately of sixty one percent (61%) forested land,
thirty five percent (35%) cleared land for agriculture and livestock use, and the remaining in
either residential or commercial use. The sub-watershed of UT to Glade Creek has a drainage
area of approximately 0.016 square miles. The project watershed drains towards the northeast
and is bounded by a series of both ridgelines and roads. From the end of the -project site moving
counter clockwise, the boundary follows a ridgeline to Andrews Ridge Road and then to
Chestnut Grove Church Road followed by a ridge to US-21. Once across US-21, the western
border is comprised by parts of Joines Road and Pine Swamp Road mixed with ridgelines and
continues to Wooten Road followed by a ridgeline to part of Bullhead Road and across the Blue
Ridge Parkway. The southern edge again crosses the Blue Ridge Parkway and then follows the
very prominent ridgeline of Bullhead Mountain and follows a rather straight line until it crosses
over US-21. The eastern boundary continues up Stoker Road on the east side of US-21 and then
follows part of a ridgeline before continuing on Glade Valley Road back to the end of the project
site.
11 Water lass RLllill % W ate ?
`
ali*
The project area is located within sub-basin 05-07-03 of the New River Basin. This area is part
of USGS Hydrologic Unit 05050001 (Upper New Basin) of the Ohio Region. The Upper New
River Basin covers 2,900 square miles (7,511 square kilometers). Glade Creek is one of two
perennial psltrreamy?s?located within the project area (DWQ Stream Index Number 10-9-9). The
Ll rural J41VLL111 J ?? Vll B?L4?11Vh(D..LQ SL}rVU.11L 1I1 lr\{A111?1 ???/ ?`1 j. ?? ? V LG???s
both Glade Creek and Wolf Branch as C;Tr. The "C" classification indicates waters protected
for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including
propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water
Wbem-sueh activities take place in an ixzfrEnuent: unorgan zed, or incidental manner- The "Tr„
classification is a supplemental classification intended to protect freshwaters which have
conditions which shall sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout on a
year-round basis. This classification is not the same as the NC Wildlife Resources Commission's
Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters designation (DWQ 2007). After Glade Creek leaves
the project area, it flows into Little River approximately 3.5 river miles (RM) do`vnstream.
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
2.3.1 Physiography
The site is located within the Blue Ridge physiographic province, which is a rugged mountainous
ar .a with.. t-ridm.,,,: -inter-mniintain basins .anti valleys This-province -contains the highest
mountains in eastern North America.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P .C. 10 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12; 20OR

2.3.2 Geology ,
' North Carolina is divided into a variety of geologic belts. The site is part of the Blue Ridge Belt.
The Blue Ridge Belt is a mountainous region characterized by a mixture of granite, gneiss,
schist, volcanic rock, and sedimentary rock that are from over one billion to about one-half
' billion years old. These rocks have repeatedly been squeezed, fractured, faulted, and twisted into
folds creating ridges and valleys.
' 2.3.3 Soils
The major soil series identified by the NRCS within the proposed conservation easement are
Suncook and Chandler. Both soils are relatively young soils that are comprised of alluvial
' deposits. See below for a soil series description.
Suncook: These soils are mapped as the soils encompassing Glade Creek. This soil series
' consists of excessively drained, nearly level sandy soils of the floodplain and are subject to
frequent flooding. The surface layer is typically a dark brown loamy sand to about 14 inches.
The subsurface layer is a brown sand to a depth of 84 inches. These soils are very low in fertility
and organic matter content. Erosion potential is low due to the nearly level slope and location
with the landscape.
' Chandler (25-45 % slope): These soils are mapped to be on the south side of Little Pine Creek
within the Mesic-Mixed Hardwood forest. This series consists of somewhat excessively drained
stony, micaceous soil located on side slopes bordering drainageways. The surface layer is dark
' grayish-brown silt loam 4-8 inches thick. The subsoil is 8-16 inches thick composed of a friable
silt loam. These soils are low to medium in natural fertility and low to high in organic matter
content. These soils are high in erodibility and in some areas as much as 75% of the original
' surface layer has been removed from erosion. In this county, most of these soils are forested
because these soils are unsuitable for cultivation and pastureland due to the stoniness and the
slope gradient.
' 2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The main watershed stressors have been farming and clearing practices. Many of the valleys
within this area were previously swamps with mucky braded systems having ample access to the
floodplain. The clearing and farming operations within the watershed have over time caused
large deposits of unconsolidated soils to end up in the valleys burying the hydric soils. The
' stream systems became confined and unstable within the deposited materials as their access to
the floodplain was restricted.
' Historic aerial photographs of the site were collected and examined. Photographs were available
from 1964, 1976, 1983, 1998, and 2005. These photographs are included in Appendix 13. A
1964 photograph of the site shows that the property was cleared and under cropland similar to
' the current state. Glade Creek shows a sinuous pattern that is similar to the existing stream
location with no vegetated buffer. The Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Glade Creek exhibits a
young forested buffer.
' The 1976 photograph shows no change in land use from 1964. However, tthe wooded buffer
along the UT has grown.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 11 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
' Dcccmbcr 12, 2008

By 1983, the photograph indicates that Glade Creek has straightened significantly from the
existing bridge downstream to the start of the proposed construction. An existing bend in this
area was cut off from the channel on the adjacent property. Some bends have become sharper; ,
however, there was not a great shift in the overall plan form of the stream.
Between 1983 and 1998, the morphology of the bend in Glade Creek at the western property line ,
developed into a smoother curve.
The 2005 photograph shows the most movement in the stream form of Glade Creek between ,
photo years. Stream bends have narrowed and expanded throughout the reach as the portions of
the stream have moved laterally within the floodplain; the stream has shifted as much as 50 feet
some in locations. ,
The watershed is rural and is comprised mainly of woods and open grassy meadows (Figure 4). '
The main development in the watershed has been for farming and there are very few residential-
only areas. The lower part of the watershed is undisturbed forest on the steep northern face of
Bullhead Mountain. The watershed may undergo more residential development in its eastern
,
corner based on some access roads and small-sized parcels that appear on the property map but
do not appear on the aerial photograph.
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species '
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in the process of, decline due to either
natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the ,
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the USFWS.
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws. ,
2.5.1 Federally Listed Species
2.5.1.1 Site Evaluation Methodology ,
A July 2, 2008 search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) digital database
of rare plants, animals, and natural areas for records of threatened and endangered species or ,
federally designated habitat found within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project site resulted in
five elemental occurrences, none of which were federally protected species (Table 1, Figure 8).
None of the occurrences were on the subject property nor are they likely to be affected by the ,
proposed actions.
Table 1. NCNHP Elemental Occurrences within 1 mile of site.

Common Name
Scientific Name Federal Status* State Status '
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A) T
Canada reed grass Calamagrostis canadensis - SR-P '
Gray's lily Lilium grayi FSC T-SC
Kanawha darter Etheostoma kanawhae - SR
Kanawha minnow Phenacobius teretulus FSC SC ,
a: T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance; FSC - Federal Species of Concern
b: T - Threatened; SR-P - Signifi cantly Rare-Proposed; T-SC - Threatened-Special Concern; SR - Significantly
Rare; SC - Special Concern
'
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 12 Glade Creek Restoration Plan
Dcccmbcr 12 Draft
2008 ,
,

The US Fish and Wildlife Service website was consulted to obtain a listing of all threatened and
endangered species for Alleghany County and the results are in Table 2.
' Table 2: Federally listed species, Alleghany County, North Carolina (11/15/2007)
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)*
' *Threatened due to similarity of appearance
The entire site was then traversed to determine if any suitable habitat existed for these species.
' 2.5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
' Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. There is only one federally listed species listed
for Alleghany County (Table 2).
' 2.5.2.1 Species Description and Biological Conclusion
' Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii
' Status: Threatened (S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Listed: November 4, 1997
The bog turtle is distinguished from other turtles by its small size and the bright orange or yellow
blotch on each side of its head. The bog turtle is a small semi-aquatic reptile, measuring 7.5-11.4
' cm in length, with a weakly keeled, dark brown carapace and a blackish plastron with lighter
markings along the midline. This species exhibits sexual dimorphism; the males have concave
plastrons and longer, thicker tails, while females have flat plastrons and shorter tails. The bog
turtle is found in the eastern United States, in two distinct regions. The northern population, in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, southern New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
' Delaware is listed as Threatened and protected by the Endangered Species Act. The southern
population, occurring in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia is
listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance.
' Preferred bog turtle habitat consists of fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps, marshy meadows and
pastures. Areas with clear, slow-flowing water, soft mud substrate, and an open canopy are
' In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia)
was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and
interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation
has no effect on land management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern
population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the
' southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss (USFWS website:
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.htnl)
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 13 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
' December 12, 2008
ideal. Clumps of vegetation such as tussock sedge and sphagnum moss are important for nesting
and basking. This species hibernates from October to April, hiding just under the frozen surface
of mud. The diet consists of beetles, moth and butterfly larvae, caddisfly larvae, snails,
nematodes, millipedes, seeds, and carrion (Nemuras 1967).
Mating takes place in May and June, and the female deposits the clutch of 2-6 eggs in a sedge
tussock, a clump of sphagnum moss, or loose soil about a month after mating. The eggs hatch in
42-56 days. A female may not nest every year and probably only produces one clutch per
reproductive year. The primary threats to the bog turtle are loss of habitat (from increased
residential and commercial development as well as draining, clearing, and filling wetlands) and
illegal collecting for the pet trade. Nest predation and disease may also play a role in the
population decrease (USFWS 2001).
The bog turtle is listed as T/SA, which is not subject to the provisions of Section 7. Suitable
habitat for bog turtle is present on site, but this area will not be impacted by restoration activities.
2.6 Federal Species of Concern
There are 20 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for Alleghany County
(Table 3). FSC are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern, Alleghany County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific name Federal Status
Vertebrate:
Allegheny woodrat
Appalachian cottontail
Eastern small-footed bat
Golden-winged warbler
Hellbender
Kanawha minnow
Invertebrate:
Diana fritillary
Grayson crayfish
Green floater
Grizzled skipper
Midget snaketail
Regal fritillary
Vascular Plant:
Butternut
Cuthbert turtlehead
Neotoma magister FSC
Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Myotis leibii FSC
Vermivora chrysoptera FSC
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Phenacobius teretulus FSC
Speyeria dana FSC
Aseetoeythere cosmeta FSC
Lasmigona subviridis FSC
Pyrgus wyandot FSC
Ophiogomphus howei FSC
Speyeria idalia FSC
Juglans cinerea FSC
Chelone cuthbertii FSC
Fen sedge Carex sp.2 FSC
Gray's lily Lilium grayi FSC
Gray's saxifrage Saxifraga carohniana FSC
Large-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus Parnassia grandifoha FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
14 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2003
I71
u
' 2.7 Cultural Resources
Letters were sent to State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians (EBCI) on April 1 and April 28, 2008, respectively, requesting information
concerning significant cultural resources on the project site (Appendix 5). No response has been
received from EBCI to date. Multiple site visits were made and no evidence of significant
cultural resources was noted. An archaeological survey of the Glade Creek Stream and Wetland
restoration area was completed by Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. in
' compliance with cultural resource regulations. One isolated find was recorded however it was
not considered to be significant (Appendix 12). No recommendations have been received from
SHPO to date, however they will be included as an addendum to this restoration plan.
' 2.8 Potential Constraints
' 2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The restoration segment of Glade Creek is located within one parcel of land owned by Sharon
W. Beck totaling approximately 44 acres of land located approximately 4.4 miles southeast of
' the Town of Sparta in Allegheny County, North Carolina. The PIN number of the parcel is
3999492451. Glade Creek enters the property at the upstream end of the restoration reach and
flows eastward to the east edge of the property which is the end of the restoration reach.
Glade Creek and one tributary are located on the project site which extends from the southwest
edge of the property parcel and travels east along the southern boundary to where it exits at the
' parcel's southeastern corner. The stream restoration project includes approximately 2,345 feet of
the existing Glade Creek and 150 feet of the existing UT to Glade Creek to be restored.
UT to Glade Creek is located on the parcel's western edge and currently converges with Glade
Creek at the beginning of the project site. The Tributary enters Glade Creek from the north.
This degraded B/C tributary is entrenched with bankfull heights that are 1 to 2 feet below the
' floodplain. The tributary drops approximately two feet in elevation slightly upstream from
where it connects to Glade Creek. The tributary is set at the base of a hillside, has very little
floodplain and has small trees and briars grown up around much of it. The tributary has low
sinuosity due to its steep valley slope and narrow floodplain.
2.8.2 Site Access
' Two entrances to the site will be made available for construction off of Fox Ridge Road. The
first will be located at the upstream end of the site and is the existing gravel road approximately
180 feet north of Sheriffs Road. The second is a proposed entrance that will be constructed on
Fox Ridge Road approximately 770 feet north of Sheriffs Road. This constructed entrance
outside of the conservation easement will remain after completion of the project for future access
by the landowner. The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division office stated that
' no permits would be required for construction of this access.
2.8.3 Utilities
' The only utility that exists on site is an overhead transmission power line. One pole is located
with the project area approximately 21 feet from the existing top of hank. Grading is proposed in
proximity to the pole however no disturbance will be made to the pole. Vegetation within the 30
foot power easement will be limited to low height plantings as required by the power company.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 15 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
' December 12, 2008
2.8.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
Glade Creek is not regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
therefore there are no FEMA constraints. No hydrologic trespass is anticipated for this project.
3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions)
3.1 Channel Classification
The existing Glade Creek classifies as a degraded C4/G4 channel. The "C" stream type is a
slightly entrenched, meandering, riffle/pool channel. Portions of the channel are trending
towards or already are a "G" channel. The "G" or "gully" stream type is an entrenched, narrow,
and deep, step/pool channel with a low to moderate sinuosity. The "G" stream types typically
have very high erosion rates and a high sediment supply (Rosgen, 1996). The "4" in the
classification describes the channel further as a gravel bed stream.
The existing UT to Glade Creek classifies as a B4/C4 channel. The "B" stream type exists
primarily on moderately steep to gently sloped terrain, with the predominant landform seen as a
narrow and moderately sloping basin. "B" stream types are moderately entrenched, have a cross-
section width/depth ratio (greater than 12), display a low channel sinuosity, and exhibit a
"rapids" dominated bed morphology. (Rosgen, 1996).
3.2 Discharge
The drainage area to the end of the project limits is approximately 8.00 square miles and mainly
consists of both steep wooded terrain and hilly farmlands with some woods. The floodplain in
the project site is well defined by hills that rise quickly at its outer edges and the stream
meanders across its entire width. The estimated bankfull discharge is approximately 469 cubic
feet per second (cfs). The discharge was estimated from twelve (12) field cross sections that
were taken along the channel. Bankfull was located within the existing channel banks
approximately 1.5 to 3.5 feet below the existing top of bank and floodplain along the entire
reach. The bankfull areas were used along with the bankfull slope to determine the stream
bankfull discharge.
3.3 Channel Morphology
The morphological characteristics of the twelve cross sections surveyed on Glade Creek are
shown in Section 10, Table 4. The morphological characteristics for UT to Glade Creek are
shown in Section 10, Tables 5 & 6. The field cross-section locations are shown in Section 12,
Restoration Plans, on Sheets 3 & 4. The tables show the existing and proposed Glade Creek and
UT Glade Creek conditions along with the morphological characteristics of the reference reaches
Basin Creek, UT to Little Pine Creek and UT to South Fork Cane Creek.
The project site is currently under agricultural use with at pine plantation. The stream is very
sinuous along the entire reach. Some of the bends in the reach are being cut off by newly
forming channels. The insides of the bends typically have lower more accessible floodplains.
The stream is entrenched throughout the reach.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 16 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

' There is beaver evidence throughout the reach indicated by the presence of beaver dams. The
existing dams have impacted the reach. The dam's effects are in the creation of ponded water
upstream of the structures and steep drops on the down stream side.
The stream dimension has widened almost along the entire reach as the channel has entrenched
and the stream banks have eroded. Debris in the channel has also cause the channel to widen and
form two channels either side of the debris in the lower end of the channel.
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
The channel stability assessment was based on observations made in evaluating bank erosion
potential with the Rosgen method of completing a Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI). BEHI
indexes were evaluated along each side of the stream bank for over 2,000 feet of existing stream.
The stability assessment indicated a high bank erosion potential for the study reach. The bank
' erosion rate for the restoration segment of Glade Creek was estimated to be 399 tons per year
based on the current bank conditions. The channel stability assessment for Glade Creek is listed
in Section 10.0, Table 7.
3.5 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull Verification on both Glade Creek and UT to Glade Creek was completed with a
' comparison of field surveyed cross sections along the streams to typical bankfull width, area,
depth, and discharge relationships. The watershed predicted discharges were compared with the
bankfull channel capacities as well for verification. The Rural Mountain Regional Curves
' developed by the North Carolina State University (NCSU) Water Quality Group were used to
verify acceptable limits of morphological characteristics based on a hydro-physiographic region
and drainage area. The average bankfull discharge, cross sectional area, width, and depth for
Glade Creek fell within the confidence limits of the North Carolina Rural Regional curves. UT
to Glade Creek has too small of a watershed for the regional curves to reasonably apply to.
' 3.6 Vegetation
Plant community classifications follow those presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible (Section 11, Figure 9). The dominant flora observed, or likely to occur, in each
' community are described and discussed below.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are provided. Plant
' taxonomy typically follows Weakley (2008). All subsequent references to the same organism
will include the common name only. Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used
in estimating flora expected to be present within the project site. Chestnut Oak Forest,
Disturbed/Cutover, Fallow Field, Acidic Cover Forest, White Pine Plantation, and a Floodplain
Pool were the observed communities and are discussed in detail below.
' 3.6.1 Chestnut Oak Forest
This chestnut oak forest community is located on the south facing slope north of Glade Creek.
' This community sits at an elevation of 2680 feet. The dominant canopy species observed were
chestnut oak (Quercus montana), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), white oak (Quercus alba),
hickory (Carya sp.) red maple (Ater rubrum), white pine (Pinus strobus). Subcanopy species
observed include red maple, black birch (Betula lenta), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida),
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 17 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
' December 12, 2008
yellow buckeye (Aesculus octandra), Carolina silverbell (Halesia carolina), American holly
(Ilex opaca), and the American crabapple (Malus coronaria). Shrub species observed within this
community include mountain laurel (Kalmia laurifolia), and Great Rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum), and Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii). Herbaceous species
observed in this community include rattlesnake weed (Hieracium venosum) and spotted
wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata).
3.6.2 Disturbed/Cutover
The disturbed/cutover community is situated on the slope in the northwest quadrant of the project
area. This community was logged recently within the last ten years and is in succession
dominated by young trees, vines and herbaceous vegetation. This community was probably part
of the chestnut oak forest located to the east. Tree and shrub species observed include scarlet
oak (Quercus coccinea), white pine, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, American
holly (Ilex opaca), painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica), black cherry (Prunus serrotina),
Smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), and multiflora rose. Herbaceous species observed include broom
sedge (Andropogon virginicus), goldenrod, catbriar (Smilax glauca), fragrant rabbit tobacco
(Pseudognaphalium obtusifohum), common rush, deer-tongue witchgrass, blackberry, common
mullein (Verbascum thapsus), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), dog fennel (Anthemis
arvensis), Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica), and the invasive exotic vine species, Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
3.6.3 Fallow Field
The fallow field is located north of the Chestnut oak forest and the disturbed/cutover community.
This area is maintained through mowing. The vegetation is mainly composed of various grasses
and herbs such as tall fescue (Schedonurus arundinaceas), crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), goldenrod,
blackberry, multiflora rose, broomsedge, sowthistle (Sonchus sp.), and milkweed (Asclepias
syrica).
3.6.4 Acidic Cove Forest
This community type is located in two different areas (southeast quadrant and northwest
quadrant) of the project area. Canopy species observed include red maple, river birch (Betula
nigra), white pine, black birch, black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canandensis), and black cherry. Great
rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum) was the dominant shrub species observed within this
community. Herbaceous species were sparse with the dominant species being Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides). Invasive species such as Japanese honeysuckle and Japanese
knotweed (Rheynoutria japonica) were observed along the margin of this community on the
roadside within the powerline corridor traversing the project area.
3.6.5 White Pine Plantation
This community is located adjacent to Glade Creek encompassing the floodplain throughout the
project area. White pines are the dominant canopy species throughout. Shrub species observed
within the plantation include swamp rose, multiflora rose, and steeplebush (Spiraea tomentosa).
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 18 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

Directly adjacent to Glade Creek a very narrow to absent riparian complex of small tree and
shrub species such as black willow, silky willow, silky dogwood, tag alder, eastern ninebark, and
red maple were observed. The herbaceous layer was dominated with various grasses and forbs
such as tall fescue, crabgrass, goldenrod, sedges, and the invasive vine kudzu (Pueria montana
var. lobata.
3.6.6 Floodplain Pool
This community is located within the Glade Creek floodplain and is encompassed within the
white pine plantation. See section the description of Wetland 2 in Section 5.1 for a detailed
description of this community.
3.6.7 Montane Alluvial Forest
The scrub shrub community is situated north of Glade Creek on the slope near the western
' boundary of the project site. This community was logged within the last ten years and is in
succession dominated by young trees, vines, and herbaceous vegetation. This community was
probably part of the chestnut oak forest located to the east. Tree and shrub species observed
' include scarlet oak, white pine, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, American
holly, painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica), black cherry (Prunus serrotina), smooth sumac
(Rhus glabra), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Herbaceous species observed include
broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), catbriar (Smilax glauca),
fragrant rabbit tobacco (Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium), common rush (Juncus effusus), deer-
tongue witchgrass (Dicanthelium clandestinum), blackberry (Rubus sp.), common mullein
(Verbascum thapsus), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), dog fennel (Anthemis arvensis), Indian
strawberry (Duchesnea indica), and the invasive exotic vine species Japanese honeysuckle
' (Lonicera japonica).
3.6.8 Maintained/Disturbed Communities
The maintained/disturbed land is located north of the Chestnut oak forest and the scrub/shrub
' community. This area is a fallow field maintained through mowing. The vegetation is mainly
composed of various grasses and herbs such as tall fescue (Schedonurus arundinaceas),
' crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), goldenrod, blackberry, multiflora rose, broomsedge, sowthistle
(Sonchus sp.), and milkweed (Asclepias syrica).
' 4.0 Reference Streams
Three reference streams were used in the Glade Creek restoration design. These were Basin
Creek, an unnamed tributary (UT) to Little Pine Creek, and an unnamed tributary to South Fork
' Cane Creek.
4.1 Basin Creek
' Basin Creek, in Wilkes County, was used as a reference reach for Glade Creek.
4.1.1 Watershed Characterization
' Basin Creek is located in Doughton State Park in Wilkes County within the Yadkin Pee Dee
River basin. The reach length surveyed extends 464 feet downstream from the stream's
confluence with Cove Creek (Section 11, Figure 10). The confluence is located approximately
1.6 miles up Grassy Gap Road, which is a trail north off of Longbottom Road (SR 1730). This
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 19 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

reach classifies as a C4 stream type with a drainage area of 6.8 square miles and is located within
the Mountain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The stream has a bankfull width of
30.7 feet and a water surface slope of 0.0141 ft/ft. The entire watershed is located within State
Park boundaries (Section 11, Figure 11). Basin Creek is a colluvial stream with dense shrub and
deciduous vegetation lining the banks and adjacent hillslopes. Bankfull indicators include high
scour lines, breaks in bank slope, changes in vegetation, moss lines, and depositional benches.
The bank height ratio of Basin Creek is typically less than 1. 1, and the entrenchment ratio is 2.8.
4.1.2 Channel Classification
Basin Creek classifies as a C4 stream type. The "C" stream types are located in narrow to wide
valleys, constructed from alluvial deposition. They have a well-developed floodplain that is
slightly entrenched, are relatively sinuous with a channel slope of 2% or less and bedform
morphology indicative of a riffle/pool configuration. The C-type streams also exhibit a
sequencing of steps (riffles) and flats (pools) that are linked to the meander geometry of the river
where the riffle/pool sequence or spacing is approximately 5-7 bankfull channel widths. The
primary morphological features of the "C" stream type are the sinuous, low relief channel, the
well developed floodplains built by the river, and characteristic "point bars" within the active
channel. The channel aggradation/degradation and lateral extension processes, notably active in
"C" stream types, are dependent on the natural stability of stream bank, the existing upstream
watershed conditions and flow and sediment regime. These channels can be significantly altered
and rapidly de-stabilized when the effects of imposed changes in bank stability, watershed
conditions, or flow regime are combined to cause an exceedance of a channel stability threshold
(Rosgen, 1996). The 4 in the classification system further identifies the stream as having a
gravel bed.
4.1.3 Discharge
The drainage area at the downstream limit of the reference reach is approximately 6.8 square
miles. Data for this reference reach was collected by others and the morphological data table
assembled by others was applied to this project. Discharge was provided in the morphological
data table. Bankfull is located at the top of the channel.
4.1.4 Channel Morphology
The morphological data used for this study for the Basin Creek reverence reach was collected by
Daniel Clinton, Jan Patterson, Louise O'Hara and Jon Williams of NC State University prior to
2001. A site visit by WCE was conducted to confirm that the stream is adequate for use as a
reference on the Glade Creek restoration project.
The morphological characteristics from the Basin Creek survey are shown in Section 10.0, Table
4, along with those from Glade Creek. The stream has the same watershed characteristics as and
is located nearby Glade Creek even though it is situated in a different River Basin. The channel
has a high bankfull width/depth ratio and a low bank height that allows floodwater to access the
floodplain. The profile consists of a well developed riffle pool sequence located at the
appropriate locations within the channel.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 20 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

1
1

L7

d

1

1

' 4.1.5 Channel Stability Assessment
' Visual observations of Basin Creek show that the stream has adequate root depth and density,
moderate bank slopes, low bank heights and good vegetative surface protection. This indicates
that the creek is contributing very little sediment to the stream.
' 4.1.6 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull verification on Basin Creek was completed by others during the data acquisition. The
Rural Mountain Curves developed by the North Carolina State University (NCSU) Water
Quality Group were used to verify acceptable limits of morphological characteristics based on a
hydro-physiographic region and drainage area. Basin Creek's average cross sectional values for
' bankfull area, width, depth and discharge fell within the confidence limits on the North Carolina
Rural Regional Curves.
' 4.1.7 Vegetation
4.1.7.1 Vegetative Communities for Basin Creek
Plant community classifications follow those presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible (Section 11, Figure 13). The dominant flora observed, or likely to occur, in each
community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are provided. Plant
taxonomy typically follows (Weakley 2008). All subsequent references to the same organism
' will include the common name only. Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used
in estimating flora expected to be present within the project site.
' 4.1.7.1.1. Montane Alluvial Forest
Basin Creek is a reference reach for the Glade Creek Stream Restoration Project in Alleghany
County. Located in Wilkes County, Basin Creek is a tributary to Middle Prong Roaring River of
' the Yadkin-Pee-bee River Basin. It flows parallel to Grassy Gap Road in Doughton Park. The
reference reach portion of this creek begins at the confluence of Cove Creek and Basin Creek
and ends 464 feet downstream. The vegetative community contiguous to this portion of Basin
' Creek is classified as a Montane Alluvial Forest. This community has an open to dense shrub
layer with a dense herb layer. The canopy is composed of bottomland and mesophytic tree
species including but not limited to tulip tree, red maple, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black
walnut (Juglans nigra), cucumber magnolia (Magnolia acuminata), black birch, white pine,
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and white oak. Subcanopy and shrub species observed
include flowering dogwood, witch hazel (Hamemalis virginiana var. virginiana), spice bush
(Lindera benzoin), red maple, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and sycamore. Herbaceous
species observed in this community include southern crownbeard (Verbesina occidentalis),
Virginia spiderwort (Tradescantia virginiana), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), witch grass
' (Dicanthelium sp.), summer grape (Vitis aestivalis), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quiquifolia), ironweed (Vernonia gigantea), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), virginia
bugleweed (Lycopus virginicus), black snakeroot (Sanicula canadensis var. canadensis), sedges
' (Carex sp.), great yellow wood sorrel (Oxalis grandis), Indian turnip (Arisaema triphyllum), hog
peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata), Ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), (Trillium sp.),
eastern bottlebrush (Elymus hystrix), bedstraw (Galium sp.), rushes (Juncus sp.), Invasive species
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 21 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
' December 12, 2008
observed were stink tree (Ailanthus altissima), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium virnineum).
4.1.7.1.2. Acidic Cove Forest
The acidic cove forest is located on the surrounding slopes within this portion of the Basin Creek
watershed (Figure 2). This community has a dense canopy with a well developed shrub layer.
The herbaceous layer is not well developed and contains a few acid loving species. The canopy
was dominated by tulip poplar, red maple, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), white oak,
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), scarlet oak, and white hickory (Carya alba). Subcanopy
species observed include white pine, American holly, Sassafras (Sassafras albidum), Fraser
magnolia (Magnolia fraseri), flowering dogwood, witch hazel, black birch, sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), red maple, eastern hemlock, and American beech. Shrubs observed
include white rosebay (Rhododendron maximum) and mountain laurel (Kalmia laurifolia).
Herbaceous species observed in this community include southern New York fern (Thelypteris
novaborensis), common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), and witch grass.
4.2 UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach
UT to Little Pine Creek, in Allegheny County, was used as a reference reach for the "B" type
stream portion of UT to Glade Creek.
4.2.1 Watershed Characterization
The reference reach for the B type portion of UT to Glade Creek is an unnamed tributary that
flows into Little Pine Creek. It is a first order stream located in Allegheny County
approximately 4 miles east-northeast of the Glade Creek restoration site. The tributary is
approximately 900 feet north from Glade Valley Road approximately 650 feet to the east after
the intersection with Big Oak Road (Section 11, Figure 14). The drainage area is approximately
0.051 square miles and consists mostly of woods and some grassy areas (Section 11, Figure 15).
The floodplain soils for UT Little Pine Creek consist primarily of Watauga and Codorus soils.
Watauga soils are described as very deep, well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep
ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. The slopes of the Watauga in this watershed range
from 6 to 25 percent. Codorus soils are described as very deep, moderately well drained and
somewhat poorly drained soils. The slopes of the Codorus soils in this watershed are 0 to 2
percent. The other soil type present in the watershed is Chester. The reference site is located in
the 14-digit HUC 05050001030030.
4.2.2 Channel Classification
UT to Little Pine Creek classifies as a B4a/C4a stream type. The "B" stream types exist
primarily on moderately steep to gently sloped terrain, with the predominant landform seen as a
narrow and moderately sloping basin. Many of the "B" stream types are the result of the
integrated influence of structural contact zones, faults, joints, colluvial-alluvial deposits, and
structurally controlled valley side slopes, which tend to result in narrow valleys that limit the
development of a wide floodplain. "B" stream types are moderately entrenched, have a cross-
section width/depth ratio (greater than 12), display a low channel sinuosity, and exhibit a
"rapids" dominated bed morphology. Bedform morphology, which may be influenced by debris
constructions and local confinement, typically produces scour pools (pocket water) and
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 22 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

' characteristic "rapids." Ros en 1996 The 4 in the classification further identifies the stream as
having a gravel bed and the "a" indicates the stream has a channel slope between 0.04 and 0.099.
' 4.2.3 Discharge
The drainage area at the downstream limit of the reference reach is approximately 0.051 square
' miles and the discharge is approximately 23 cfs. The stream discharge was predicted by
determining bankfull indicators along the channel at surveyed cross sections. Bankfull is located
' at or slightly above the top of the channel.
4.2.4 Channel Morphology
' The morphological characteristics of the eight cross sections surveyed on UT to Little Pine Creek
are shown in Section 10. 0, Table 5, along with those from UT to Glade Creek. The stream is
located in the same physiographic region, the Ohio River Basin, as Glade Creek. UT to Little
' Pine Creek classifies as a "B4a/C4a" type channel and was used to design the "B" type portion of
UT to Glade Creek. By using the range of numbers from the morphological tables that are more
closely associated with a "B" type channel, the designed channel will fall into that classification.
' The "B" type portion of the reference channel has a moderate entrenchment ratio, a high
width/depth ration and a low sinuosity which is appropriate for a step-pool system.
' 4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment
Visual observations of UT to Little Pine Creek show that the stream has adequate root depth and
density, moderate bank slopes, low bank heights and good vegetative surface protection. This
' assessment determined that UT to South Fork Cane Creek has low bank erosion potential,
degrades slowly and contributes little sediment to the stream waters.
' 4.2.6 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull verification on UT to Little Pine Creek was completed with a comparison of field
surveyed stream cross sections for typical bankfull width, area, depth, and discharge
' relationships. The watershed predicted discharges were compared with the bankfull channel
capacities generated from field cross sections for verification. UT to Little Pine Creek has too
small of a watershed for the rural mountain regional curves to reasonably apply to.
' 4.2.7 Vegetation
4.2.7.1 Vegetative Communities of UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach
Plant community classifications follow those presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible (Section, Figure 17). The dominant flora observed, or likely to occur, in each
' community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are provided. Plant
taxonomy typically follows (Weakley 2008). All subsequent references to the same organism
will include the common name only. Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used
in estimating flora expected to be present within the project site.
' 4.2.7.1.1. Acidic Cove Forest
UT to Little Pine Creek is a reference reach for the UT to Glade Creek. Located in Alleghany
' County, UT to Little Pine Creek is a tributary to Little Pine Creek of the New River Basin. It
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 23 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

flows parallel into Little Pine Creek just west of the project site. The reference reach portion of
this creek is situated within an acidic cove forest. The canopy is dominated by tulip poplar, red
maple, and white pine. Subcanopy and shrub species observed include red maple, white pine,
black birch, black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), American holly, spicebush, black cherry
(Prunus serotina), hawthorn (Crateaegus sp.), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), alternate leaf
dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), white rosebay, and Election pink (Rhododendron '
periclymenoides). Herbaceous species observed in this community include greenfruit clearweed
(Pilea pumila), yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta), tree club-moss (Dendrolycopodium ,
obscurum), Christmas fern, Skunk cabbage (Simplocarpus foetidus), New York fern, and
(Hexastylis sp.). Japanese stiltgrass was the only observed invasive exotic species.
4.2.7.1.2. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest ,
This community encompasses the Acidic Cove Forest and is situated on the slope south of Little
Pine Creek. Canopy species observed include scarlet oak white pine, mockernut hickory, tulip
poplar, white oak (Quercus alba), red maple, black oak (Quercus vellutina), and scarlet oak. '
Small tree and shrub species observed include American holly, mountain laurel, smooth
highbush blueberry, earleaf umbrella tree (Magnolia fraseri), black cherry (Prunus serrotina), ,
American beech, flowering dogwood, and hawthorn (Crataegus sp.). Herbaceous species
observed include catbriar (Smilax glauca), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), New York fern,
little brown jug (Hexastylis arifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquifolia), mayapple ,
(Podophyllum peltatum), common greenbriar, Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica), and
Soloman's seal (Polygonatum sp.).
4.3 UT to South Fork Cane Creek '
ITT to South Fork Cane Creek, in Chatham County, was used as a reference reach for the "C"
type stream portion of UT to Glade Creek.
4.3.1 Watershed Characterization
The reference reach for the C type portion of UT to Glade Creek is an unnamed tributary that ,
flows into South Fork Cane Creek. It is a second order stream located in Chatham County that
crosses under Tom Stevens Road (SR 1343) approximately 5,600 feet south of the
Alamance/Chatham County line (Section 11, Figure 18). The reference site is located in the 14- '
digit HUC 03030002050050.
4.3.2 Channel Classification '
The reference reach classifies as a C4 stream type and has an average bankfull width of 15 feet,
cross sectional area of 11.6 sq. ft., mean depth of 0.88 ft., and a water surface slope of 0.0079
ft/ft. It is located in a wooded area approximately 350 feet downstream of the culvert under Tom ,
Stevens Road, 400 linear feet of stream was measured. The stream is a slate bed stream. The
floodplain is moderate to wide along the surveyed length. The 4 in the classification system
further identifies the stream as having a gravel bed. '
4.3.3 Discharge
The drainage area at the downstream limit of the reference reach is approximately 0.41 square '
miles and the discharge is approximately 33.9 cfs. The stream discharge was predicted by
determining bankfull indicators along the channel at surveyed cross sections. Bankfull is located
at or near the top of the channel. ,
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 24 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

4.3.4 Channel Morphology
' The morphological characteristics of the surveyed cross sections on UT South Fork Cane Creek
are shown in Section 10. 0, Table 5, along with those from UT to Glade Creek. The stream has
similar watershed characteristics as UT to Glade Creek. The channel has a high bankfull
' width/depth ratio and a low bank height that allows floodwater to access the floodplain. The
profile consists of an adequately developed ripple pool sequence located appropriately within the
stream's sinuous pattern.
' 4.3.5 Channel Stability Assessment
Visual observations of UT to South Fork Cane Creek show that the stream has adequate root
' depth and density, moderate bank slopes, low bank heights and good vegetative surface
protection. This assessment determined that UT to South Fork Cane Creek has low bank erosion
potential, degrades slowly and contributes little sediment to the stream waters.
' 4.3.6 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull verif cation on UT to South Fork Cane Creek was completed with a comparison of field
' surveyed stream cross sections for typical bankfull width, area, depth, and discharge
relationships. The watershed predicted discharges were compared with the bankfidl channel
capacities generated from field cross sections for verification. The Rural Piedmont Curves
developed by the North Carolina State University (NCSU) Water Quality Group were used to
' verify acceptable limits of morphological characteristics based on a hydro-physiographic region
and drainage area. The average cross sectional areas for UT to South Fork Cane Creek fell
' within the confidence limits for the bankfull discharge, area, width, and depth on the North
Carolina Rural Regional Curves.
4.3.7 Vegetation
4.3.7.1 Vegetative Communities of UT to South Fork Cane Creek
Plant community classifications follow those presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible (Section 11, Figure 21). The dominant flora observed, or likely to occur, in each
community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are provided. Plant
taxonomy typically follows (Weakley 2008). All subsequent references to the same organism
' will include the common name only. Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used
in estimating flora expected to be present within the project site.
' 4.3.7.1.1. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
UT to South Fork Creek is a reference reach for the UT to Glade Creek. Located in Alamance
County, UT to South Fork Creek is a tributary to South Fork Creek of the greater Cape Fear
River Basin. The reference reach portion of this creek is situated within a mesic mixed
hardwood forest-piedmont subtype. The canopy is dense and dominated by tulip poplar,
American beech, white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white hickory
' (Carya alba), Subcanopy and shrub species observed include red maple, flowering dogwood,
blackhaw viburnum (Viburnum prunifolium), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), blackgum (Nyssa
sylvatica), willow oak (Quercus phellos), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black walnut,
' ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), black cherry, American holly, and Eastern red cedar
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 25 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
' December 12, 2008
(Juniperus virginiana). Herbaceous species observed in this community include grape fern
(Botrychium sp.), Agrimone sp., Eastern bottlebrush grass (Elymus hystrix), sedge (Carex sp.),
Ebony spleemwort (Asplenium platyneuron), yellow wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta), poison ivey
(Toxicodendron radicans), common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), netted chain fern
(Woodwardia aereolata), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), wingstem (Verbesina
occidentalis), Christmas fern, Hexastylis sp., and the invasive exotic Japanese stiltgrass.
4.3.7.1.2. Fallow Field
This community borders east side of the mesic mixed hardwood forest. No canopy species were
observed within this community. Herbaceous species were dominant here including tall fescue
(Lolium arundinacium), various milkweeds (Asclepias sp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium sp.),
goldenrods (Solidago sp.), are a few of the species observed within this fallow field successional
community.
5.0 Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions)
Wetlands were delineated according to guidelines set forth by the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Field Manual, dated January 1987(USACE 1987). This manual identifies the
mandatory technical criteria for wetland identification, which includes determining the presence
of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Wetland boundaries were
flagged and surveyed using GPS equipment (Section 11, Figure 8).
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional delineations were performed using the three-parameter approach as prescribed in
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratories 1987).
Supplementary technical literature describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and hydrological indicators was also utilized. The USACE wetland routine determination
forms are included in Appendix 2.
Field teams used USGS topographic quadrangle mapping (7.5-minute) with the property
boundary on Trimble global positioning system (GPS) handheld units with sub-meter accuracy
for navigation and mapping.
Six wetlands (W1-W6) were observed within the project site:
¦ Wetland 1 is a small riparian wetland system contiguous to UT 1
¦ Wetland 2 is a floodplain pool community and is the largest wetland on the site
¦ Wetland 3 is contiguous to the north side of Glade Creek and appears to be a relic
location of the channel
• Wetland 4 is located at the toe of the slope on the north side of Glade Creek
¦ Wetland 5 and 6 are both small wetlands contiguous to the south side of Glade Creek
(Section 11, Figure 8).
All three wetland criteria were observed in each Wetland.
Wetland 1- Wetland 1 (81° 3' 43"W, 36° 28' 39"N) is a complex of small riparian wetlands
contiguous to UT 1 to Glade Creek. Regional indicator F3 was used to determine hydric soils.
The major source of hydrology is from the high water table within the valley of UT 1. This
wetland is 0.082 acre and is composed of herbaceous vegetation. Herbs observed include orange
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 26 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

jewelweed (Impatiens caPensis), sedges (Carex sp.), Eastern bottlebrush ass ElYmus hYstrix
ln' ( ),
netted chain fern (Woodwardia aereolata), deer-tongue witchgrass (Dicanthelium clandestinum),
' common rush (Juncus effusus), Alleghany buttercup (Ranunculus alleghaniensis), and blue eyed
grass (Sisyrinchium mucronatum).
Wetland 2- Wetland 2 (81° 3' 40"W, 36° 28' 40"N) is located in the north side of Glade Creek
within floodplain. Regional indicator F3 was used to determine hydric soils. The major source
of hydrology is from a high water table and some overbank flooding. This wetland is 0.74 acre
' and is mainly composed of herbaceous vegetation with some small trees and shrubs located
along the wetland margin. The wetland community is classified as a floodplain pool community
(Schafale and Weakley 1994). During the site visit, hydrology was clearly evident with drainage
' patterns and areas of standing water. Amphibian larvae were abundant throughout the pools.
Vegetation observed consisted of common rush, common bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), giant
t ironweed (Vernonia gigantea), alternate-leaf seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), arrowleaf
tearthumb (Persicaria sagittata), sedges. Small tree and shrub species observed were tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), Eastern ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius), silky dogwood (Corpus
' amomum), multiflora rose (Rosa multiora), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), and some white pines
(Pinus .strobus), from the white pine plantation were observed along the wetland margins.
Wetland 3- Wetland 3 (81° 3' 38"W, 36'28'42"N) is contiguous to the north side of Glade
Creek and, based on aerial photography, appears to be a relic location of the channel. The
hydrology is mainly driven from overbank flooding and a high water table. This wetland is
' 0.042 acre and is mainly composed of herbaceous vegetation with some small trees and shrubs
located along the wetland margin. Small tree species observed within this wetland were black
willow (Salix nigra), silky willow (Salix sericea), tag alder, and silky dogwood. Herbaceous
' species observed include common rush, orange jewelweed, sedges, deer-tongue witchgrass, and
goldenrod (Solidago sp.).
' Wetland 4- Wetland 4 (81 ° 3' 30"W, 36° 28' 42"N) is located at the toe of the slope on the
north side of Glade Creek. Regional indicator F3 was used to determine hydric soils. Hydrology
is mainly due to a high water table and stormwater retention from overbank flooding. This
' wetland is 0.021 acre and is composed only of herbaceous vegetation with some small shrubs
located along the wetland margin. The only shrub observed was a multiflora rose plant along the
margin. Herbaceous species observed include common rush, sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis),
' goldenrod, blackberry (Rubus sp.), and sedges.
Wetland 5- Wetland 5 (81° 3' 34"W, 36° 28' 40"N) is a small wetland contiguous to the south
side of Glade Creek. The hydrology is mainly driven from overbank flooding and a high water
table. Regional indicator F3 was used to determine hydric soils. This wetland is 0.034 acre and
is composed only of herbaceous vegetation with some small shrub species. Small tree and shrub
' species observed includes tag alder and black willow. Herbaceous species consist of orange
jewelweed, goldenrod, sedges, knotweed (Polygonum sp.), deer tongue witchgrass, and wild
garlic (Allium vineale).
' Wetland 6- Wetland 6 (81 ° 3' 29"W, 36° 28' 40"N) is contiguous to the south side of Glade
Creek in the southeastern portion of the project site. The hydrology is mainly driven from
' overbank flooding and a high water table. Regional indicator F3 was used to determine hydric
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 27 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
' December 12, 2008

soils. This wetland is 0.032 acre and is composed of only herbaceous vegetation with some
small shrub species. Small tree and shrub species observed includes red maple (Ater rubrum),
eastern ninebark, silky dogwood, and black willow. Herbaceous species consist of orange ,
jewelweed, goldenrod, sedges, arrowleaf tearthumb, deer tongue witchgrass, and fescue.
5.2 Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands '
The project site encompasses a relatively large floodplain area of Glade Creek. An area within
the floodplain reflects morphological evidence of potentially becoming a wetland but does not

have hydric soil. The surrounding uplands are relatively steep, especially the northern slope, and '
appear to contribute a fairly consistent flow of groundwater. It is recommended to remove
limited amounts of the fill soil in conjunction with re-routing the UT to Glade Creek through this

area to increase the hydrology. Native hydrophytic vegetation will be planted to restore the ,
montane alluvial forest plant community. This buffer restoration effort will improve wildlife
habitat, attenuate stormwater runoff . '
5.2.1 Hydrological Characterization of Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands
Three groundwater gauges (Gauge 1, 2, & 4) were installed within non jurisdictional wetland '
areas of the project area on April 3, 2008 (Figure 22). These gauges record a groundwater levels
daily and the data is collected bi-monthly. Hydrologic regimes are monitored to determine if
groundwater levels are within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 5% of the growing season. '
These areas will be considered wetlands if the groundwater is within 12 inches for at least 5% of
the growing season, the area supports hydrophytic vegetation, and it meets the hydric soil
requirements. In this region, the average growing season is 147 days from May 11 to October 5 '
therefore the groundwater table needs to be within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 7.35
days in order to consider the soils hydric. The water table for Gauges 1, 2, and 4 were all well
below the required 12 inches, averaging around 40 inches below the soil surface during the '
growing season. The data from these gauges are shown in Appendix 9.
This area used to have a wetland hydrologic regime, as expressed by the buried hydric soil. It is '
believed that the incising of Glade Creek and the UT have caused a drainage effect. The
groundwater elevation is expected to be raised by re-routing the UT through the area into a more
natural, elevated stream channel. '
5.3 Groundwater Modeling of Restoration Site
No groundwater modeling is recommended for this project.
5.4 Surface Water Modeling at Restoration Site
No surface water modeling is recommended for this project. ,
5.5 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site
A hydrologic budget is not anticipated for this project. However the groundwater gauges were '
installed March 2, 2008. This groundwater data will be analyzed to make a final determination
as to the need for the hydrologic budget.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 28 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008 '

5.6 Soil Characterization of Existing Wetland
Accordingly, an overall site assessment consisting of a series of hand auger borings were
conducted throughout the site (Section 11, Figure 6). The most notable feature throughout the
majority of the study area was a buried hydric soil horizon. The depth to this horizon ranged
' from 8 to 30+ inches. This feature is NOT noted in any of the county soils mapped by MRCS, as
such, any associations with a particular mapped soil would be inappropriate.
' The soil deposited on top of the buried horizon has begun to develop morphological features.
These features were used to identify the current hydric/ non-hydric soil boundary. The current
hydric soil met hydric regional indicator F3, which states:
' F3. Depleted Matrix. For use in all LRRs, except for W, X, and Y. A layer that has a
depleted matrix with 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a maximum thickness
of either:
a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches)
of the soil, or
' b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface.
(USDA, NRCS 2006)
Two representative soil borings, non-hydric GC2 and hydric GC3, are provided below:
Boring GC2. Typical Non Hydric Profile
' Horizon Depth
name (in) Soil Color* Texture
A 0-5 dark brown (IOYR 3/3) sandy loam
' Bwl 5-12 dark brown (IOYR 3/3) sandy loam
Bw2 12-18 dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) with few faint strong brown sandy clay
(7.5YR 5/8) and common prominent (5YR 4/6) concentrations. loam
Ab 18-48+ very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam
' *Munsell soil color notation
Boring GC3. Typical Hydric Profile
' Horizon Depth
name (in) Soil Color* Texture
A 0-6 very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) with common distinct silt loam
' dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/6) concentrations
Bwl 6-18 brown (IOYR 4/3) with common distinct dark yellowish brown sandy loam
0OYR 4/6) concentrations
' Ab 1848+ black (IOYR 2/1) with common distinct dark yellowish brown silt loam
(1 OYR 4/6) concentrations
* Munsell soil color notation
See section 2.3.3 for a description of soils soils mapped within the project site according to the
Alleghany County NRCS soil survey.

Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 29 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008
J

5.7 Soil Characterization of Non-Jurisdictional Wetland
There is a buried hydric soil throughout this non jurisdictional wetland at approximately 19

inches. The soil that has filled this wetland appears to have come from a well drained upland. '
However, it has begun to develop some morphological features giving evidence that the
groundwater level / wetland hydrologic regime has re-adjusted to a point above the old hydric

surface. As such, it is recommended that some of the approximately 19 inches of soil be t
removed in conjunction with the stream restoration efforts to restore the area to a jurisdictional.
wetland. '
5.7.1 Taxonomic Classification of Wetlands and Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands
The NRCS Soil Survey for Alleghany County has two soil series mapped within the proposed t
conservation easement: the Chandler and Suncook soil series. Chandler soils are somewhat
excessively drained, strongly sloping to very steep, micaceous soils found mainly in forests and
pastures. Suncook soils are excessively drained, nearly level soils of the flood plains and are '
subject to very frequent flooding. Most of this series is in pasture or cultivation with the rest of
the area forested. The soils in Wetland I are mapped as the Chandler and Suncook series.
Wetland 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are mapped as the Suncook series. '
5.7.2 Soil Profile Descriptions
See section 5.6 for a typical soil profile description for hydric soils observed within jurisdictional '
wetlands.
5.7.3 Hydraulic Conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity tests are not recommended for this project.
5.7.4 Organic Matter Content
In fertility testing performed by the NCDA, the organic matter content in two different samples
was 0.66%. It is anticipated that this will increase once the area is restored.
5.7.5 Bulk Density
Calculation of bulk density is not recommended for this project.
5.8 Plant Community Characterization
Wetland 1 is a small wetland complex that is contiguous to UT to Glade Creek. It is located
within a white pine plantation. Wetland 2 is a floodplain pool community encompassed within
the white pine plantation that occupies the floodplain within the project site. Wetland 3, 4, 5,
and 6 all are located within the white pine plantation. See Section 5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
for wetland community descriptions.
6.0 Reference Wetlands
Wetland 2 will be used as the on site reference wetland. A reference wetland gauge was installed
within the wetland (Figure 22). For a detailed description of this wetland see section 5.1
Jurisdictional Wetlands.
n
1

Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 30 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008 '

' 6.1 Hydrological Characterization of Jurisdictional Wetland
One Remote Data Systems (RDS) groundwater monitoring gauge (Gauges 3) was installed
within Wetland 2 on April 3, 2008 (Figure 22). These gauges record a groundwater levels daily
and the data are collected bi-monthly. Hydrologic regimes are monitored to determine if
groundwater levels are within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 5% of the growing season.
These areas will be considered wetlands if the groundwater is within 12 inches for at least 5% of
the growing season, the area supports hydrophytic vegetation, and it meets hydric soil
' requirements.
In this region, the average growing season is 147 days from May 11 to October 5; for the soil
' to be considered hydric, the groundwater table needs to be within 12 inches of the soil surface for
at least 7.35 consecutive days. The hydrological requirements for Wetland 2 were met multiple
times during the growing season. The data from all the gauges are shown in Appendix 9.Gauge
Data Summary
6.1.1 Gauge Summary Data
The data from the four gauges are shown in Appendix 9. Gauge 1 and 2 were both placed in
upland areas of the floodplain of Glade Creek near Wetland 6 and 2, respectively. Groundwater
levels at these locations react to major storm events but do not meet hydric soil requirements, as
was expected. Gauge 3 was placed in reference wetland (Wetland 3) and is described in section
6.1. Gauge 4 was placed outside of but near the tip of Wetland 1. While this area does not
currently meet hydric soil requirements, groundwater levels are highly responsive to rain events.
' 6.2 Soil Characterization
The soil characterization is as noted for Wetland 2 in Section 5.7.
6.2.1 Taxonomic Classification
The taxonomic classification is as noted for Wetland 2 in Section 5.7.1.
6.2.2 Profile Description
The soil profile description is as noted for Wetland 2 in Section 5.7.2.
1 6.2.3 Hydraulic Conductivity
No hydraulic conductivity tests are recommended for this project.
6.2.4 Organic Matter Content
In fertility testing performed by the NCDA, the organic matter content in two different samples
' was 0.66%. It is anticipated that this will increase once the area is restored.
6.2.5 Bulk Density
' Calculation of bulk density is not recommended for this project.
6.3 Plant Community Characterization
' 6.3.1 Community Description
This wetland is located on the north side of Glade Creek within the white pine plantation
' encompassing the floodplain of the project site. Regional indicator F3 was used to determine
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 31 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
' December 12, 2008
1

hydric soils. This wetland is mainly composed of herbaceous vegetation with some small trees
and shrubs located along the wetland margin. This wetland community is classified as a
fl
oodplain pool community (Schafale and Weakley 1990). This wetland is 0.73 acre and is '
dominated with herbaceous vegetation with some shrub and small trees located along the
wetland margin. During the site visit hydrology was clearly evident with drainage patterns and
areas of standing. Amphibian larvae were ubiquitous throughout the pooled areas. Vegetation '
observed consisted of common rush (Iuncus effusus), common bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), giant
ironweed (Vernonia gigantea), alternate-leaf seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), arrowleaf
tearthumb (Persicaria sagittata), sedges (Carex sp.). Small tree and shrub species observed '
were tag alder (Alnus serrulata), Eastern ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius), silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), and some

white pines (Pinus strobus) part of the white pine plantation were observed along the wetland '
margins.
6.3.2 Basal Area
The reference wetland is basically devoid of canopy trees. As such, basal area is not addressed.
7.0 Project Site Restoration Plan
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The restoration plan for Glade Creek includes Priority I stream restoration as well as wetland
restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Glade Creek within the project limits will have a
restored stream length of 1580 feet. A portion of UT to Glade Creek will undergo a Priority I

restoration for a total length of 441 linear feet. The total project restored stream length is 2021 '
linear feet. Approximately 0.16 acres of wetlands are to be restored, 0.13 acres enhanced, and
0.79 acres preserved as a part of the project. '
7.1.1 Designed Channel Classification
The proposed Glade Creek channel will be restored as a C4 stream. The restoration will remove ,
a number of severe bends within the stream pattern and as a result will shorten the existing
stream length.
Th
h
h
roug
t
e restoration the stream pattern, profile, and dimension will be adjusted to allow the
stream to efficiently transport its water and sediment load through a combination of changes to
the channel dimension, pattern, and profile. The channel dimension will be modified to provide
for a shallower and wider stream that is designed for the bankfull cross sectional area. The new
stream channel will have access to the floodplain for storm events greater than the bankfull
return period. The pattern of the stream will also be adjusted. ,
The installation of structures and vegetation will be an important part of the restoration plan to
lend long-term stabilization. Clay plugs will be installed in the old channel on either side of '
where the new channel passes through it in order to prevent future breaches. Rock toe protection
is proposed on outside bends which are high stress locations. Single wing vanes and rootwads
have been included into the design to assist in bank stabilization. Constructed riffles and cross '
vanes have been added to the project to reinforce the vertical stability of the new stream
elevations. Vegetated soil lifts have been included in the project at locations in which the outer ,
bank in a bend will be constructed with fill soils.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 32 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008 ,

Grading of the floodplain bench will provide additional flood capacity during the 100-year storm
' event to compensate for the change in channel configuration. The proposed grading is shown on
the restoration plans Section 12, Sheets 3&4.
' UT to Glade Creek will be restored with a priority one restoration. The tributary will tie into the
existing channel on a steep slope. The new channel is designed as a B4 for the first 125 feet and
' then will become a C4 channel as it runs through the floodplain for the last 316 feet.
UT to Glade Creek currently runs straight to Glade Creek. The proposed new alignment will
' provide for a more sinuous channel and relocate the stream back onto the top of the floodplain.
This alignment is also anticipated to provide a surface water connection to the 0.16-acre area for
which wetland restoration is proposed. As detailed in the Mitigation Plan, the fill soil covering
' the buried hydric soil in the 0.16-acre area shows indications of a shallow water table such that it
could be restored to hydric status. The new channel alignment of UT to Glade Creek, in
conjunction with limited fill soil removal, is anticipated to restore the area to wetland status. A
larger contiguous wetland will be formed between the existing Wetland 2 (a 0.79-acre wetland)
' and Wetland 1 (a 0.05-acre wetland).
' The property directly upstream of the UT to Glade Creek is currently accessed by cattle for
grazing. The cattle roam freely through the UT which is an A-type stream in a very steep terrain
under a heavily wooded canopy on this property, which results in high velocities that are causing
erosion. The resulting sediment is being conveyed downstream into Glade Creek. The new
stream alignment will allow much of the sediment to be deposited onto the floodplain and not
directly into Glade Creek.
H

P

The new alignment will connect the tributary to existing Wetland 3 that would have otherwise
been isolated except for overbank flows from Glade Creek. The existing stream is pushed next to
a terrace slope and was likely relocated there to maximize farming opportunities in the
floodplain. The new alignment will be constructed as a B-type channel from the tie in with the
existing channel to the end of the terrace slope, elevation 2575 feet. The existing floodplain
contours slope to the northeast through the floodplain towards Wetland 3. The proposed C type
stream will follow the contours east through the floodplain to connect with Wetland 3. A short
segment of stream approximately 50 feet will connect this wetland with Glade Creek at a stable
riffle location.
The proposed tributary will be constructed in alluvial floodplain soils. The stream channel will
be held vertically with constructed riffles. The channel banks will be stabilized with herbaceous
material and erosion control matting which will provide stability until the vegetation establishes.
The anticipated bankfull velocity for the stream within the floodplain is 2.12 feet/second which
is below the allowable velocity for sandy loam at 2.5 feet/second. Storm events larger than
bankfull will have access to the floodplain. Therefore the proposed channel will be stable
immediately after construction and in the long term.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 33 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

7.1.2 Target Wetland Communities/Buffer Communities '
The enhanced and restored wetland areas will be planted with canopy and understory plant
species typical of a montane alluvial forest. Herbaceous vegetation will not be planted with the '
anticipation of present native species and volunteers giving rise from the seedbank. See Section
10, Table 9 below for a list of tree and shrub species that will be planted within the enhanced and '
restored floodplain areas. The restoration planting plan is shown in Section 12, Sheet 5.
7.2 Sediment Transport Analysis '
7.2.1 Methodology
A stable stream has the capacity to move its sediment load without aggrading or degrading. The '
total load of sediment can be divided into wash load and bed load. Wash load is normally
composed of fine sands, silts and clay and transported in suspension at a rate that is determined
by availability and not hydraulically controlled by the size and nature of the bed material and '
hydraulic conditions (Hey 1997).
The critical shear stress for the proposed channels has to be sufficient to move the particle size ,
diameter value at the 84`h percentile (D84) of the bed material. Shear stress was computed using
the shear stress equation below and compared to the Shield's Curve of the threshold of grain
diameter motion. '
7=7Rs
Where: T= shear stress (lb/sqft)
T specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/cubic ft.) '
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = water surface slope (ft/ft) '
Additional sediment transport analysis was completed using the Rosgen method of using bed
materials and sub surface material D50 particle sizes to determine the critical dimensionless '
shear stress. The critical shear stress along with the channel slope and largest sub-pavement
moving particle made available by the watershed as measured on a depositional feature were
used to predict the mean depth for the design channel at bankfull. If the channel design depth is '
too small the channel sediment will be deposited. If the depth is too large the channel will need
energy deposition.
7ci = 0.0834( -0.872 '
0"S0
(Depth = h 1.65 ?D
scope '
Where: 2'ci = critical shear stress (lb/sqft)
fii = D50 pavement bed material '
d'SO = D50 sub-pavement
0 = Largest sub-pavement particle (ft) '
Depth = Mean depth at bankfull (ft)
Slope = Average water surface slope at bankfull (ft/ft)
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 34 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008 ,

' 7.2.2 Calculations and Discussion
' The shear stress calculated for sediment samples in Glade Creek 0.70 lbs/sq ft when entered into
Shield's Curve, predicted a range of particle motion of 3.54 inches small cobble. The D84 in
Glade Creek is small cobble and therefore will move as a bed load. The Rosgen analysis showed
that with the mean channel depth designed for Glade Creek, a particle between 120 mm to
' approximately 150 mm (small to medium cobble) will pass through the system. This is
consistent with the shields diagram analysis of the range of particle motion in the system. The
' bankfull depth of 1.88 to 2.17 feet for the proposed stream was designed to pass the cobble
sediment that is moving through Glade Creek.
' Two channel segments of UT to Glade Creek were evaluated for sediment transport in the
tributary. The upper channel reach of the tributary is a "B" type channel, which is a step pool
system typically on a steep slope. The shear stress calculated for sediment samples in this upper
' reach is 0.66 lbs/sq ft when entered into Shield's Curve, predicted a range of particle motion of
3.3 inches small cobble. The D84 in UT to Glade Creek is very coarse gravel and therefore will
move as a bed load. The Rosgen analysis showed that with the mean channel depth designed for
' UT to Glade Creek, a particle 80 mm (small cobble) will pass through the "B" type stream
system. This is consistent with the shields diagram analysis of the range of particle motion in the
system. The bankfull depth of 0.23 feet for the proposed "B" type stream was designed to pass
' the very coarse gravel sediment that is moving through UT to Glade Creek.
The lower channel reach of UT to Glade Creek is a "C" type channel within a broad floodplain.
' The shear stress calculated for sediment samples in this lower reach is 0.6 lbs/sq ft when entered
into Shield's Curve, predicted a range of particle motion of 3.3 inches small cobble. The D84 in
UT to Glade Creek is very coarse gravel and therefore will move as a bed load. The Rosgen
' analysis showed that with the mean channel depth designed for UT to Glade Creek, a particle 40
mm (very course gravel) will pass through the "C" type stream system. This is consistent with
the shields diagram analysis of the range of particle motion in the system. The bankfull depth of
' 0.28 feet for the proposed "C" type stream was designed to pass the very coarse gravel sediment
that is moving through UT to Glade Creek.
' 7.3 HEC-RAS Analysis
' 7.3.1 Hydrologic Trespass
Although Glade Creek is not a FEMA regulated stream, a flood study was conducted using a
HEC-RAS model to determine potential Hydrologic Trespass. Cross sections were located at
' 500 feet or less intervals along the stream with sections extending upstream and downstream of
the project to determine off site impacts. Pre and post-project models were run and the predicted
water surface elevations compared to determine the effects of the designed channel within the
floodplain during selected storm events.
As a result of the stream channel relocation no rise in water surface elevations occurs on adjacent
' properties during the 10 or 100-year storm events. A slight rise in water surface elevation did
occur with in the project site.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 35 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
' December 12, 2008

7.4 Hydrological Modifications
7.4.1 Narrative of Modifications '
This area used to have a wetland hydrologic regime, as expressed by the buried hydric soil. It is
believed that the incising of Glade Creek and the UT have caused a drainage effect. The
groundwater elevation is expected to be raised by re-routing the UT through the area into a more '
natural, elevated stream channel.
7.4.2 Scaled Schematic of Modifications ,
The restoration and enhancement are shown on sheet 3 and 4 of the restoration plans as well as
sheet 5 the planting plan.
7.5 Soil Restoration '
7.5.1 Narrative & Soil Preparation and Amendment '
The Alleghany County Soil Survey has the floodplain within the study site mapped as either
Chandler or Suncook soils. (Note - Suncook has been reclassified as Biltmore). These soils are
very deep, excessively drained sandy soils formed in alluvial sediments. They are nearly level ,
soils on flood plains, subject to common flooding. However, there is a buried hydric soil horizon
throughout most of the study site, the depth to which ranged from 18 to 23 inches. This feature
is NOT noted in any of the county soils mapped by NRCS. As such, any associations with a '
particular mapped soil would be inappropriate.
Two soil fertility samples (GCO 1 and CG02) were taken within the floodplain to determine soil '
amendment recommendations for the proposed planting zones. Sample GCO1 represents the
soils approximately within 50 ft of Glade Creek. GC02 represents the soils within the pine ,
plantation. Due to soil disturbing activities during construction, it is recommended that samples
be collected post construction activities to ensure accurate soil amendment recommendations.
See the attached soil test results in Appendix 10 for additional information. '
7.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration
7.6.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration ,
The target vegetative community for the stream buffer along Glade Creek is a montane alluvial
forest as define by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The wetland enhancement and restoration '
areas will be planted with wetland species typically observed within a montane alluvial forest.
The restoration plan consists of three planting zones: Zone 1 (Stream Bank), Zone 2 (Stream ,
Buffer/Montane Alluvial Forest), Zone 3 (Wetland Enhancement/Restoration), Zone 4 (Chestnut
Oak Forest), and Zone 5(Power Line Easement-Montane Alluvial Forest Shrubs Only). Zone 1
will consist of small tree and shrub suitable for planting along stream banks. Zone 2 will consist '
of canopy, subcanopy, and shrub species typical for a montane alluvial forest. Zone 3 will
consist of a canopy, subcanopy, and shrub species typically found in wetland communities of a
montane alluvial forest. Zone 4 will consist of canopy and shrub species that were observed '
within the relatively undisturbed Chestnut Oak Forest within the project site. Zone 5 lies within
the powerline easement and will consist only of shrub species typical for a montane alluvial
forest. Tree species will not be planted within this area. A list of species for each zone is
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 36 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008 '

' provided in Section 10, Table 11. The herbaceous species seed mix specifications will be
determined and provided in the construction plan.
7.6.2 On-site Invasive Species Management
There were 4 invasive exotic plant species observed throughout the project site; kudzu, Japanese
' honeysuckle, tall fescue, Japanese knotweed, and multiflora rose. Where ground disturbing
activities occur within the project site, invasive exotic species management strategies will be
conducted. Prior to construction, locations of invasive exotic plants within the proposed
conservation easement will be flagged to ensure that all plants are removed from the site.
Manual or mechanical removal of invasive exotic plants should always be considered as the first
' method of control where feasible. Life history and alternative management strategies that are
species specific are presented below.
Multii fora rose: This aggressive shrub, native to Asia, can out-compete native vegetation and
become the dominant shrub layer of an invaded habitat resulting in a lower species composition
and an alteration in the natural community structure. It can shade out the herbaceous layer of the
' community it inhabits. This deciduous shrub colonizes by prolific sprouting stems that root and
the seeds are spread widely by wildlife such as birds. Control efforts during early stages of
colonization have a higher potential for successful management. Between the months of April
' and October a foliar herbicidal application should be used. Use glyphosate between May and
October for a less effective treatment that has no soil activity of damage to surrounding plants.
For stem to tall for a foliar spray, an herbicidal application in a basal oil, diesel fuel, or kerosene
can be applied to the bark as a basal spray. The cut stump method, which entails cutting large
stems and immediately treating the stumps with an herbicide should be used.
' Japanese Honeysuckle: Manual or mechanical removal should always be considered as the first
method of control where feasible. Japanese honeysuckle occurs as dense infestations along
forest margins, rights-of-ways, and under canopies. This vine is shade tolerant and spreads from
' a large root stock, rooting at vine nodes, and from seeds dispersed by animals. Control
procedures to consider should include broadcast spraying between June and October while
avoiding desirable plants. For larger vines cut them just above the soil surface and immediately
' treat the freshly cut stem with an herbicide between the months of July and October.
Japanese knotweed: This native to eastern Asia is an upright shrub like herbaceous perennial
' that grows to a height of 10 feet. It spreads by water, seeds are found in fill dirt, vegetatively due
to its stout rhizomes. Manual removal is effective for small colonies which is the case for the
few plants seen within the project site. All parts of the plant must be removed to ensure no
' chance for re-sprout.
Kudzu: This plant was observed within the White Pine plantation near the road within the
powerline corridor. Manual remove the root crown followed by a foliar herbicidal application
during late summer for successive years.
' Tall fescue: This grass is found in the maintained/disturbed area of the project site. Currently it
is being maintained through mowing however post restoration management strategies will need
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 37 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
' December 12, 2008

to be implemented. This cool season grass is found in extensive colonies and can cause serious ,
infestations. Control efforts include using a herbicide solution in water in the spring.
8.0 Performance Criteria
To demonstrate mitigative success, baseline conditions will be established in the form of as-built
drawings. The as-built drawings will include profile and plan views of the completed stream '
project. At the conclusion of the construction activities, the channel modifications and planted
vegetation based on a bankfull return period will be monitored annually for a minimum of five
years. Monitoring reports will be prepared at the end each year and made available to the
resource agencies.
8.1 Streams '
The proposed success criteria for stream mitigation will be based on the stability of the stream.
The geomorphology of the stream will be monitored as follows: ,
• Dimension: Permanent cross sections (surveyed or GPS'd) will be established in the
frequency of one for every 20 bankfull widths along the length of the reach. Cross '
section sites will be selected such that approximately half are placed in riffles and half
placed in pools. Measurements of W/D ratio, entrenchment ratio, and low bank height
ratio will be monitored yearly. '
• Pattern: Pattern measurements will include sinuosity and meander width ratio and will be
performed yearly. Measurements of radius of curvature will be monitored on newly
constructed meanders for the first year only. '
• Profile: Longitudinal profile will be surveyed and measurements collected on slope
(average, pool, riffle) and pool-to-pool spacing.
• Materials: Pebble counts in pools and riffles will be measured. The D50 and D84 '
particle size diameter percentiles will be monitored to assure an increase in coarseness in
riffles and an increase in fineness in pools.
• Photo Reference Points: Photo reference points will be established at all cross sections ,
showing banks and channel. Additional photos will be taken at selected structures on the
project to monitor their structural stability.
• Vegetation: Vegetation plots will be established to monitor the plant survival in the ,
planted areas of the conservation easement and stream bank. The vegetation plots will be
10 meters by 10 meters and will be established based on site conditions. Vegetative
sampling will be undertaken on a yearly basis. The survival rate will be based on 320 '
stems/acre for trees after five years of planting.
During the annual review the entire stream reach will be evaluated for any potential problem ,
areas and photographs taken to document the degree and severity. Potential problem areas may
include bank instability, in-stream structure failure or unsuccessful vegetation establishment. If a '
failure area is noted, corrective actions will be evaluated to resolve the problem. Remedial
actions will be undertaken considering any seasonal limitations. Any remedial actions will be
documented on the as-built plans.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 38 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008 '

' 8.2 Wetlands
The project is expected to help to restore the hydrology to the non jurisdictional wetland through
a combination of stream re-routing, soil removal, and native plantings. The restored wetland is
riparian and anticipated to have wetland hydrology for at least 12.5% of the growing season.
Wetlands 1, 3, and 5 are expected to be enhanced through the planting of tree and shrub species
typical of a montane alluvial forest while Wetland 2 will be preserved and enhanced indirectly
' by completion of this project.
8.3 Vegetation
' The vegetation monitoring will be conducted according to the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
- EEP protocol Version 4.0 (Lee et al 2006), Vegetation monitoring plots will be 100 square
meters in size and will be conducted according to the Level I protocol which has a focus on
' planted stems only. The purpose of this level of monitoring is to determine the pattern of
installation of plant material with respect to species, spacing, density, and to monitor the survival
and growth of those installed species. The success criteria for the preferred species in the
restoration areas will be based on annual and cumulative survival and growth over five (5) years.
Survival on preferred species must be at a minimum 320 stems/acre at the end of the three years
of monitoring and 260 stems/acre after five years. The number of required plots is based on the
mitigation category: stream enhancement, stream restoration, and wetland restoration. A
spreadsheet is provided by EEP to calculate to necessary numbers of plots for streams (Lee et al
2006). The number of required wetland plots is determined on a case-by-case basis. According
to the spreadsheet calculation, four plots will be required for the restored reach of Glade Creek.
The restored reach of the UT to Glade Creek will require two plots.
' 8.4 Schedule/Reporting
The Glade Creek Stream Restoration Project will be determined to be successful once vegetation
success criteria have been met within the restoration and enhancement areas. During vegetation
' monitoring, planted and volunteer stem densities will be measured in addition to the relative
abundance and diversity of herbaceous vegetation within the monitoring plots. Species will be
listed and identified by wetland indicator status. Planting locations and methods will be
completed in the first year Annual Report. Survival, numbers per acre by species, and tree
height will be measured at the end of each growing season just prior to leaf fall.
Monitoring data will be collected for a period of five years or until all success criteria are
achieved, whichever is longer. Annual Reports will be submitted to the EEP prior to the end of
each calendar year, documenting plant community conditions within the restoration areas and
' documenting hydrologic data within these areas and reference plots. The project areas will be
photographed from permanent photo stations and changes in any of the above variables will be
recorded and included in each annual report. The Annual Report will also include a proposed
' plan of action for the following year including maintenance activities.

Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 39 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

9.0 References
Alleghany County Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Office. Sparta., North i
Carolina. Aerial Photographs from 1964, 1976, 1983, and 2005. US Department of
Agriculture.
Alle anCoun North Carolina GIS Inform ,
? Y County anon. Accessed December 2007.
Daniels, R.B., S.W. Buol, H.J. Kleiss, and C.A. Ditzler. Soil Systems in North Carolina. '
Technical Bull. 314. North Carolina State University, Soil Science Dept. Raleigh, NC.
27695-7619. 1999.
Doll, B. A., G. L. Grabow, K. R. Hall J. Halle W. A. Harman, G. D. Jennings, and D. E. Wise.
Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook. North Carolina Stream
Restoration Institute. North Carolina Sea Grant. State of North Carolina Department of '
Transportation. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical ,
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
100 pp. + appendices.
Lee, M.K., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP protocol for recording
'
vegetation: All levels of plot sampling. Version 4.0.
http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-manual-v4_levl-5.pdf. [23 March 2008] ,
Malcom, H. Rooney P.E/, Elements of Urban Stormwater Design, North Carolina State
University, 1989. '
Miller,James H.2003. Nonnative invasive plants of southern forests: a field guide for
identification and control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: U. S. Department of ,
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 93p.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS). 2008. Soil Survey of Alleghany County, North ,
Carolina. US Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
Nemuras, K. 1967. Notes on the natural history of Clemmys mahlenbergi. Bulletin Maryland
Herpetological Society 3(4): 80-96.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 1995. Annual Performance Report, '
Non-game and Endangered Wildlife Program, Vol. III, July 1993-June 1994.
North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2005. New River Basin Wide Water ,
Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section October 2005
North Carolina State Flood Mapping Program web site: www.nefloodmaps.com, No Data '
Available for Alleghany County.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 40 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008 '

' NOAA's National Weather
Service. Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center -Precipitation
' Frequency Data Server. Available URL:
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/orb/nc pfds html
Patterson, J. M., D. R. Clinton, W. A. Harman, G. D. Jennings, and L. O. Slate. 1999.
' Development of streambank erodibility relationships for North Carolina streams. In
Wildland Hydrology, Proc. AWRA Specialty Conf., Bozeman, Montana, ed. D. S. Olson
' and J. P. Potyondy, 117-123. Middleburg, Va.: American Water Resources Association.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs Colorado.
' Schafale, M.P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, third approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, N.C. 325 pp.
' Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Soil Conservation Services, June 1986, Technical
Release 55
' US Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package, September 1990, Hydrologic
Engineering Center.
' United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 6.0. G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas
(eds.). USDA,NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric
' Soils.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern Population,
Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 103 pp.
US Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4084, Estimation of Flood-
Frequency Characteristics of Small Urban Streams in North Carolina, 2001
US Geological Survey (USGS). 1981 Cumberland Knob Quadrangle, North Carolina [map].
' 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Washington D.C.
US Geological Survey, Water-supply Paper 1898-B. Determination of the Manning Coefficient
' From measured Bed Roughness in Natural Channels, 1970.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2005. Water Resources of the United States. Hydrologic Unit
' Maps. Available URL: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html.
Weakley, A. S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and
' surrounding areas. http://herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm
Wolman, M.G., 1954. A Method of Sampling Course River-Bed Material, Transactions of
' American Geophysical Union 35:951-956.
Stream Morphology Relationships From Reference Streams In North Carolina, Daniel Clinton,
' North Carolina State University, 2001.
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. 41 Glade Creek Restoration Plan Draft
December 12, 2008

1

I

E

10.0 Tables
' Table 1. Glade Creek Restoration Structure and Objectives
Table 2. Drainage Areas
' Table 3. Land Use of Glade Creek Watershed
Table 4. Morphological Table for Glade Creek
' Table 5. Morphological Table for UT to Glade Creek- "B" Type Channel
Table 6. Morphological Table for UT to Glade Creek - "C" Type Channel
' Table 7. BEHI/NBS and Sediment Export Estimate for Glade Creek
Table 8. BEHUNBS and Sediment Export Estimate for UT to Glade Creek
' Table 9. Planting Plan Species List
Table 10. Particle Size Distribution - Glade Creek
' Table 11. Particle Size Distribution - UT to Glade Creek Type "B"
Table 12. Particle Size Distribution - UT to Glade Creek Type "C"
' Table 13. Sediment Transport Validation Glade Creek
Table 14. Sediment Transport Validation UT to Glade Creek Type "B"
' Table 15. Sediment Transport Validation UT to Glade Creek Type "C"
Table 1: Glade Creek Restoration Stnicture and Ohiectivec
Restoration' Station Restoration Priority Existing Designed ` Comment
Segment ID Range Type Approach Linear Linear
Footage Footage
Main Channel 1+00 to Restoration 1 2345 1580
10+80 1
Tributary 0+00 to Restoration 1 150 441
4+49
Tributary Ex 0+00 to Preservation 150 150
1+50
i Wetland NA Restoration NA 0.16 Ac
Wetland 1,3,5 NA Enhancement NA 0.16 Ac
Wetland 2,4 NA Preservation NA 0.76 Ac
Table 2: Drainage Areas
Stream Draina e Area (S q. Miles
Glade Creek 8.00
UT to Glade Creek 0.016
Table 3: Land Use of the Glade Creek Watershed
Land Use Square Miles Percentage
Pavement 0.03 10.4%
Comine?ial 0.09 1.1 %
Residential (1/2 Ac lots) 0.05 0.6%
Residential (1 Ac lots 0.08 1.0%
Lawn (fair) 2.87 35.5%
Woods (good) 4.97 61.4%
t

Table 4: Momhological Tahle fnr Glade Creek
Variables Existing Channel: Upper Proposed Lower Proposed Reference Reach:
Glade Creek Reach: Glade Reach: Glade Basin Creek
Creek Creek
Stream type Degraded C4/E4 C4 C4 C4
Drainage Area (Sq. Mile) 8.00 8.0 8.0 6.8
Bankfull width (Wbkf) feet 33.98 36 30 30.7
(17.51-42.38
Bankfull mean depth (dbkf) 2
47

feet .
(2.02-3.27) 2.19 1.88 1.9
Width/depth ratio 14.13 16
4 16 16
4
(Wbkf/dbkf) (7.45-19.60) . .
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area 83
42

(Abkf) (sq ft) .
(41.15-108.90) 79 56.6 57.4
Bankfull Mean Velocity
(Vbkf) feet/second 5.53 5.75 8.0 NA
(4.89-7.05)
Bankfull Discharge, cfs

(Qbkf) cfs 455 455 455 NA
Bankfull Maximum depth 4.18
(dmax) feet 3.0 3.0 2.5
(3.61-4.85)
Max driff/dbkf ratio 1.47

1.30-1.80) 1.37 1.59 1.32*
Low Bank Height feet 4.03

(2.66-5.37) 3.0 3.0 2.5
Ratio of Low bank Height to
0.97
max dbkf (0.71-1.36) 1.0 1.0 1.0
Width of flood prone area 273.14 354 243
(Wfpa) feet (79.83472.39) (295-430) (90-340) 70
Entrenchment ratio 7.94 9.83 6
74
(Wfpa/Wbkf) (3.10-13.71) (8.19-11.94) .
(2.5-9.44) 2.3
Meander length (Lm) feet 213.75 367 345

100-275
360-370
(330-360 350
Ratio of meander length to 6.29 10.19 9.58
bankfull width Lm/Wbk 2.94-8.09 (10-10.2$ 9.17-10 11.40*
Radius of Curvature (Rc) feet 63.25 103.5 120 105.2
21-114) 96-116) (107-141 (76.7-133.8
Ratio of radius of curvature to
bankfull width (Rc/Wbkf) 1.86 2.88 3.32 3.43
(0.62-3.35) (2.67-3.22) (2.97-3.92) (2.5-4.36)

Belt width (Wblt) feet 75.31 140 91.5

(20-135
(132-150
78-105 105
Meander width ratio 2.22 3.89 2
54

Wblt/Wbk
0.59-3.97
3.67-4.17) .
(2.17-2.92 3.2
Sinuosity (stream length

/valley distance k) 1.60 1.38 1.2 1.1
Valle slope ft/ft 0.0072 0.0056 0.012 0.017
Average slope Savg= (Svalley

/k 0.0042 0.004 0.010 0.0141
Pool Slope (Spool) (ft/ft) 0.0020 0.0055
0.0000-0.0048 0.002 0.002 (0.0049-0.0061)
Ratio of pool slope to average 0.47 0.388
slope (Spool/Sbkf) (0.00-1.10 0.49 0.20 0.346-0.430)
Maximum pool depth (dpool) 4.54

feet
(4.20-4.95 4.25 4.0 3.1
Ratio of pool depth to average 1.84

bankfull depth d ol/dbk
1.70-2.01) 1.94 2.13 1.66
Pool width (Wpool) Feet
31.75
33-36
28-30
40
6
(24.77-36.31) .
Ratio of pool width to 0.93

bankfull width (Wpool/Wbkf)
(0.73-1.07) 0.93-1.0 0.93-1.0 1.32
Pool Cross Sectional Area (sq 93.01 95 68 64
4
ft) 79.13-107.48 .
Ratio of pool area to bankfull 1.11

area
(0.95-1.29 1.2 1.2 1.12
Pool to pool spacing (p-p) feet 99.26 227 190 224
44.45-215.18 (220-240 180-210 120-240
Ratio of p-p spacing to 2.92 6.32 5.28 *
7
30
bankfull width - /Wbk 1.31-6.33 6.11-6.67 5-5.83 .

Table 5: Morphological Table for UT to Glade Creek - B" Type Channel
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Variables Existing Channel: Proposed Reach: Reference Reach: UT
Glade Creek Glade Creek to Little Pine Creek
Tributary Tributary Trib 1
Stream type B4/C4 B4 B4a/C4a
Drainage Area (Sq. Mile) 0.01637 0.01637 0.051
Bankfull width (Wbkf) ft 3.80 3.5 7.55
(3.14-4.45 6.17-11.11)
Bankfull mean depth (dbkf) 0.22 0
23 0.60
ft (0.20-0.24) .
(0.046-0.69)
Width/depth ratio 17.61 15
21 13.46
(Wbkf/dbkf) (12.97-22.25) . (9.11-24.30)
Bankfull Cross Sectional 0.83 0
80 4.35
Area sq.ft. (Abkf) (0.76-0.89) . (3.79-5.08)
Bankfull Mean Velocity 1.60 5
26
(Vbkf) ft/sec (1.40-1.80) 4.08 .
(4.18-5.86)
Bankfull Discharge, cfs
(Qbkf) 3 3 23
Bankfull Maximum depth 0.40 1
59
(dmax) ft (0.40-0.40) 0.30 .
(0.82-1.03)
Max driff/dbkf ratio 1.83 1
54
1.65-2.00 1'3 .
0.92-1.84
Low Bank Height ft 1.78 1
19
1.67-1.88) 0.30 .
(0.96-1.74
Low bank Height to max 4.44 1
30
dbkf (4.18-4.70) 1.0 .
(1.01-2.12)
Width of flood prone area 7.56 28
90
(Wfpa) ft (5.28-9.84) 50 ,
(14.31-46.33)
Entrenchment ratio 1.95 4
36
(Wfpa/Wbkf) (1.68-2.21) 14.29 .
(1.29-7.49)
Meander length (Lm) ft 38.09 46 101
12-65) 25-18.6 55-140
Ratio of meander length to 10.04 13.39 13
39
bankfull width (Lm/Wbkf) (3.16-17.13) (7.2-18.6) .
(7.29-18.56)
Radius of Curvature (Rc) ft 21.82 18 38.8
(5-61 9.3-30.6 (20-66
Ratio of radius of curvature 5.75 5.14 5
14
to bankfull width (Rc/Wbkf) (1.32-16.07) (2.65-8.75) .
(2.65-8.75)
Belt width (Wblt) ft 16.27 9.9 21.4
13-21 8.7-12.3 19-26
Meander width ratio 4.29 2.84 2.84
(Wblt/Wbkf) (3.43-5.53) (2.5-3.5) (2.52-3.45)
Sinuosity (stream length

/valley distance) (k) 1.04 1.25 1.09
Valley slope (ft/ft) 0.05 0.053 0.0516
Average slope Savg=
(Svalley /k) ft/ft 0.048 0.049 0.04733
Pool Slope (Spool) 0.0414
0
01 0.0152
(0.0185-0.0914) . 0.0029-0.0351)
Ratio of pool slope to 1.23 0.46 0.46
average slope (spool/Sbkf) (0.55-2.72) (0.09-1.05) (0.09-1.05)
Maximum pool depth 0
48 1
23
(dpool) ft .
(0.35-0.70) 1.0 .
(0.7-1.5)
Ratio of pool depth to
average bankfull depth 2.19 3
3 2.05
(dpool/dbkf) (1.58-3.17) . (1.17-2.50)
Pool width (Wpool) Ft. 5.63 3.0 5.83
(4.99-6.27 (2.1-3.2 4.15-7.40
Ratio of pool width to
bankfull width 1.48 0.86 0.77
(Wpool/Wbkf) (1.31-1.65) (0.6-0.9) (0.55-0.98)
Pool Cross Sectional Area 0
82 3.70
sq.ft. .
(0.78-0.86) 1'0 (1.26-6.93)
Ratio of pool area to 0.99 1.25 0.85
bankfull area (0.95-1.04) (0.29-1.6) (0.29-1.59)
Pool to pool spacing (p-p) ft 26.14 35-38 40.88
4.69-68.61 (15.77-90.45
Ratio of p-p spacing to
bankfull width (p-p/Wbkf) 6.89 10-10
85 5.42
(1.24-18.08) . (2.09-11.99)

1
1
1

1
1
Table 6: Momholopical Table for UT to Glade Creek - "C" TvnP C hnnnPl
Variables Existing Channel: Proposed Reach: Reference Reach: UT
Glade Creek Glade Creek South Fork Cane Creek'
Tributary Tributary
Stream type B/C C4 C4
Drainage Area (Sq. Mile) 0.01637 0.01637 0.41
Bankfull width (Wbkf) ft 3.80 5 (12.7 - 13.9)
3.14-4.45) 13.3
Bankfull mean depth (dbkf) 0.22 0
28 (0.85 - 0.91)
ft (0.20-0.24) . 0.88
Width/depth ratio
(Wbkf/dbkf) 17.61 17.8 (14.5 - 16.35)
(12.97-22.25)
15.15
Bankfull Cross Sectional 0.83 (11.03 - 11.95)
Area sq.ft. (Abkf) (0.76-0.89) 1'4 11.59
Bankfull Mean Velocity 1.60 (2.86 - 2.98)
(Vbkf) ft/sec (1.40-1.80) 2.2
2.9
Bankfull Discharge, cfs (32.2 - 35
7)
(Qbkf) 3 3 .
33.9
Bankfull Maximum depth 0.40 (1.26 - 1
44)
(dmax) ft (0.40-0.40) 0.43 .
1.34
Max dnff/dbkf ratio 1.83 1.53 (1.44 - 1.64)
(1.65-2.00 (1.44-1.64 1.53
Low Bank Height ft 1.78 (1.06-2.4)
(1.67-1.88) 0.43 1.59
Low bank Height to max 4.44 1.0 (0.84 - 1
8)
dbkf
(4.18-4.70)
(0.9-1.1) .
1.19
Width of flood prone area 7.56 (27-45)
(Wfpa) ft (5.28-9.84) 100
35.3
Entrenchment ratio
(Wfpa/Wbkf) 1.95
28
57 (2.13 - 3.24)
(1.68-2.21) . 2.65
Meander length (Lm) ft 38.09 45 (35-57.5)
(12-65) 40-5$ 45
8
Ratio of meander length to 10.04 9 .
(2
64 - 4
33)
bankfull width (Lm/Wbkf) (3.16-17.13) (8-11) .
.
3.49
Radius of Curvature (Rc) ft 21.82 8.1 (11.7 - 35.9)
5-61 (4.4-14.9 21
5
Ratio of radius of curvature 5.75 1.62 .
(0
88 - 2
71)
to bankfull width (Rc/Wbkf) (1.32-16.07) (0.9-2.9) .
.
1.62
Belt width (Wblt) ft 16.27 30 (15-32)
13-21 25-42 21.7
Meander width ratio 4.29 6 (1.13 - 2.41)
(Wblt/Wbkf) (3.43-5.53) (5-8.4) 1.63
Sinuosity (stream length

/valley distance) (k) 1.13 1.27 1.27
Valley slope (ft/ft) 0.05 0.014 0.010
Average slope Savg=
(Svalley /k) ft/ft 0.044 0.011 0.0079
Pool Slope (Spool) 0.0414 0
001 (0.00 - 0.0013)
0.0185-0.0914 . 0.0003
Ratio of pool slope to 1.23 (0.00 - 0.16)
average slope (spool/Sbkf) (0.55-2.72) .030 0.04
Maximum pool depth 0.48 (1.63-2.2)
(dpool) ft (0.35-0.70) 0'8 1.99
Ratio of pool depth to
average bankfull depth 2.19 2
8 (1.86 - 2.51)
(dpool/dbkf) (1.58-3.17) . 2.27
Pool width (Wpool) Ft. 5.63 5 12
3
4.99-6.27 (4-5) .
Ratio of pool width to
bankfull width 1.48 0.8
0
93
(Wpool/Wbkf) (1.31-1.65) 0 8 1 0
( - ) .
Pool Cross Sectional Area 0.82 (15.4 - 16.7)
sq.ft. (0.78-0.86) 1'9 16
Ratio of pool area to 0.99 1.3 (1.33 -1.44)
bankfull area (0.95-1.04) (1.3-1.4) 1.38
Pool to pool spacing (p-p) ft 26.14 20 (22.8-64)
4.69-68.61 23-30 40.3
Ratio of p-p spacing to 6.89 4 (1.72 - 4.82)
bankfull width (p-p/Wbkf) (1.24-18.08) (4.6-6) 3.04
Table 7: BEHUNBS and Sediment Exnort Estimate for Glade Creek
Time Point Linear 3
Footage w a

Pre-
Construction Ft. % Ft. % Ft. % Ft. % Ft. % Ft. % Ton/y
2286 64 3 355 16 568 25 840 37 461 20 0 0 399

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Table 8: BEHUNBS and Sediment F.xnort F..timnte for I TT to CTlarlP C`rP.P.k
Time Point Linear 3
Footage 1~ ,0 " o

W ? x ? a
Pre-
Construction Ft. % Ft. % Ft. % Ft. % Ft. % Ft. % Ton/y
288 0 0 0 0 61 21 157 54 71 24 0 0 8.4
Table 9. Planting Plan Species List
Plantine Zone 1 (Streamhank)
Trees and S hrubs
Alnus serrulata Tag alder
Ph socar us o li olius Eastern ninebark
Cornus amomum Silk dogwood
Hamamelis vi 'niana Witch-hazel
Salix sericea Silky willow
C inus carohniana Ironwood
S iraea lati olia Meadowsweet
Vibrunmm cassinoides Northern Wild Raisin
Xanthorhiza sim licissima Yellow-root
Planting Zone 2 (Stream buffer-Montane Alluvial Forest)
Trees and Shrubs
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
Liriodendron tuli i era Tulip poplar
Ca rya cordi ormis Bittemut hickory
Celtis laevi ata Hackbe
Asimina triloba Common pawpaw
Co lus americana Hazelnut
Alnus serrulata Tag alder
P soc us o li olius Ninebark
Co lus americana Hazelnut
Hamamelis vi 'niana Witch-hazel
Ca inus carohniana Ironwood
Vaccinium co bosum Hi hbush blueberry
Ilex verticillata Blue Huckleberry
Lindera benzoin S icebush

Planting Zone 3 (Wetland F.nhancement/Rettoratinn)
Trees and Shrubs
Ca rya ovata Shagbark hickory
Fraxinus n lvanica Green ash
Alnus serrulata Tag alder
Rosa lustris Swam rose
P soca s o li olius Eastern ninebark
Salix sericea Sil willow
Sambucus canadensis Common elderberry
Lindera benzoin S icebush
Planting Zone 4 (Chestnut Oak Forest)
Trees and' Shrubs
uercus montana Chestnut oak
uercus coccinea Scarlet oak
uercus alba White oak
N ssa lvatica Black gum
C a alba Mockemut hickory
Liriodendron tuli i era Tulip tree
Sasso as albidum Sassafras
Kalmia lati olia Mountain laurel
Rhododendrom maximum Great Rhododendron
Planting Zone 5 - (Power Line Easement-Montane Alluvial Forest Shrubs Only)
Shrubs'
Co lus americana Hazelnut
Alnus serrulata T alder
P s s o li olius Ninebark
Euo us americana Strawberry bush
Hamamelis vi 'niana Witch-hazel
Vaccinium co mbosum Hi hbush blueberjy
Ilex verticillata Blue Huckleberry
Corms a7nOMUM Silky Dogwood
Lindera benzoin S icebush
7
Table 10. Particle Size Distribution - Glade Creek

1

1

Materials: Existing Proposed Reference
Particle Size distribution
of channel material (mm)
D16 12 12 0.17
D35 20 20 29
D50 31 30 58
D84 80 80 180
D95 105 105 300
Particle Size distribution
of bar material (mm)
D16 1.1 1.1 N/A
D35 2.4 2.5 N/A
D50 3.9 4 N/A
D84 12 12 N/A
D95 19 19 N/A
Largest size particle at the
toe (lower third) of bar 4.5-6 4.5-6 N/A
(mm)

Table 11. Particle Size Distribution - UT to Glade Creek Tyne "B"
Materials: Existing Proposed Reference
Particle Size distribution
of channel material (mm)
D16 0.5 0.5 0.38
D35 4 4 0.9
D50 7.1 7.1 7
D84 42 42 31
D95 95 95 62
Particle Size distribution
of bar material (mm)
D16 0.24 0.24 0.62
D35 0.38 0.38 3.3
D50 0.48 0.48 8.1
D84 1.3 1.3 37.4
D95 4.7 4.7 68
Largest size particle at the
toe (lower third) of bar
(mm)
1.35-2"
1.3"-2"
3.0"-3.5"

1
1
1
1

11
1
1
Table 12. Particle Size Distribution - I TT to CTIgdt- Creek Tvne "C"
Materials: Existing Proposed Reference
Particle Size distribution
of channel material (mm)
D16 0.5 0.5 N/A
D35 4 4 N/A
D50 7.1 7.1 N/A
D84 42 42 N/A
D95 95 95 N/A
Particle Size distribution
of bar material (mm)
D16 0.24 0.24 N/A
D35 0.38 0.38 N/A
D50 0.48 0.48 N/A
D84 1 3 1.3 N/A
D95 4.7 4.7 N/A
Largest size particle at the
toe (lower third) of bar 1.315-2" 1.317-2" N/A
(mm)
Table 13. Sediment Tramnort Valirlatinn rTta,?P ('rPalr
Sediment Transport Validation
(Based on Bankfull shear Stress) Existing Proposed
Calculated value (lb/sq.ft.) 0.65 0.68-0.71
Value from Shield Diagram (lb/sq.ft.) 0.65 0.65
Critical dimensionless shear stress 0.0137 0.0137
Miminum mean dbkf calculated using critical
dimensionless shear stress equations (ft)
2.69
1.88-2.19
1
1
Table 14. Sediment Transnort Validation ITT to GInde C reelk Tvne "R"
Sediment Transport Validation
(Based on Bankfull shear Stress) Existing Proposed
Calculated value (lb/sq.ft.) 0.66 0.60
Value from Shield Diagram (lb/sq.ft.) 0.33 0.33
Critical dimensionless shear stress 0.008 0.008
Miminum mean dbkf calculated using critical
dimensionless shear stress equations (ft) 0.049 0.23
*Note this is a step pool system.
Table 15. Sediment Transnort Validation TTT to Glade Creek Type. "C:"
Sediment Transport Validation
(Based on Bankfull shear Stress) Existing Proposed
Calculated value (lb/sq.ft.) 0.64 0.23
Value from Shield Diagram (lb/sq.ft.) 0.3 0.3
Critical dimensionless shear stress 0.008 0.008
Miminum mean dbkf calculated using critical
dimensionless shear stress equations (ft) 0.2 0.28

L
r
L

1
1

1

1
i
i
i
11.0 Figures
Figure 1. Glade Creek Property Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Glade Creek Property Aerial Vicinity Map
Figure 3. Glade Creek Property Restoration Objectives
Figure 4. Glade Creek Property Watershed Map
Figure 5. Glade Creek Property Aerial Watershed Map
Figure 6. Glade Creek Property NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 7. Glade Creek Property Hydrologic Features
Figure 8. Project Site Wetland Delineation Map
Figure 9. Glade Creek Property Vegetative Communities
Figure 10. Reference Site Basin Creek Vicinity Map
Figure 11. Reference Site Basin Creek Watershed Map
Figure 12. Reference Site Basin Creek NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 13. Reference Site Basin Creek Vegetative Communities
Figure 14. Reference Site UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 15. Reference Site UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach Watershed Map
Figure 16. Reference Site UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 17. Reference Site UT to Little Pine Creek Reference Reach Vegetative
Communities
Figure 18. Reference Site UT to South Fork Cane Creek Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 19. Reference Site UT to South Fork Cane Creek Reference Reach Watershed Map
Figure 20. Reference Site UT to South Fork Cane Creek Reference Reach NRCS Soil
Survey
Figure 21. Reference Site UT to South Fork Cane Creek Reference Reach Vegetative
Communities
Figure 22. Reference Site Wetland Determination Sample Locations with Gauge Locations
Figure 23. Typical Design Cross Sections Glade Creek - Upper Section
Figure 24. Typical Design Cross Sections Glade Creek - Lower Section
Figure 25. Typical Design Cross Sections UT to Glade Creek - "B" Type Channel
Figure 26. Typical Design Cross Sections UT to Glade Creek - "C" Type Channel
7
u

0

77
1J

1

49
!X!!
?-
_ 1
TE if
273 c4? F \ . I--o ?\ \' L' 4 ( I \` ?? .
qem
? .' , I-?'?^ ?t/,? ? '•, / `259 ? gs??l )?' --? - ? ,? u? ? i
/?? /? ??/ `l I i ` ?` ! 5• • 1 / I A! ! Fry 770 46.10
Oil
28
JJJ
1 \ (• \ \ \ '\, 'fit ( ) `?` f \
USGS Quadrangle Map Glade Valley, 1968
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
L' cosys em Alleghany County, North Carolina
<< ?'
SCO #070708801
vwow
FIGURE 1
0K 0
dN SITE GLADE CREEK
VICINITY MAP
DATE: JULY 21, 2008
?'r Pd
s WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
N zooo looo o zooo
8386 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0526
Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX 919; 870-5359
r1
ate.
M
N
Ln
00
0
0
N
00
00
U
Ln
L
X
w
Y
U
W
Io
C7
Y
2
U
N
-a
M
C7
N
a
N
J
N
ro
U
0
C
3
ra
L
0
u
O
Q
U
?".4Yc? s4 l? ?i ? y 'S'am' '?'?. * .' ? ?y .. ?; .:?h . ?^-' - •;/' ? -
ma?yt.,,,, ' " : '? F ? .: r A` 4. ? ? +'s? / ? ?} ,?F ' •
? • ?, r w
?. ter
PROJECT SITE
GLADE CREEK
UT GLADE CREEK
,,.... ,
BEGIN PROJECT iF: END PROJECT , .
• ? ?'? }. :tit' ? +w `': . ,e' ?.+ ? I? ? r ? `,',., .
4 4471
.?.' ? e ' ? ;r•4... '?'? ,?, V.S. ,,,'1i?R?` f .t,.` '? r..^ ? ,., , ..
i?!
t ? ?? 43 - -_ d+ 1 ` ,n•y '? '?.?#'.,,'?`" 'tea, 'R. . ^, '??
41.
` F lM • M1 `•'yXi1 t •'a R
?` •A.
lip 0
_ ?'.:?'Yj?j r ? ?y?r.-' ? rid .? ?'? Osr • '?.
Aerial photo from Alleghany County, 2005
'tip
r 'r? a
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
1COSyS em Alleghany County, North Carolina
} z
vaooww SCO #070708801
of FIGURE 2
C-%
q0
dN SITE Q? GLADE CREEK
AERIAL VICINITY MAP
?'r `?y ern
?f DATE: JULY 21, 2008
car ?d
s WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
" 500 250 0 500
8388 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0528
" Raleigh, NC 27815-5088 FAX 919; 870-5359
?a
•
PROPOSED
GLADE CREEK EXISTING
GLADE CREE
EXISTING UT CE r1 Ct. ;
GLADE CREE s- CE '
cc ------
W ?
Ci }
PROPOSED UT/
GLADE CREEK PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
RESTORATION OBJECTIVES LEGEND
STREAM RESTORATION = 2021 LF
WETLAND RESTORATION (0.16 AC)
EXISTING WETLANDS PRESERVATION (0.79 AC)
EXISTING WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT (0.13 AC)
- - PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
OSYS em Alleghany County, North Carolina
PROOPAu SCO #070708801
110.74. lip
FIGURE 3
d" SI,TE GLADE CREEK
o}
RESTORATION OBJECTIVES
yyf' DATE: JULY 21, 2008
?1 'Pd
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
1300 150 0 300
8386 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 ?919) 870-0526
Raleigh, NC 27815-5088 919870-5359

M M M - iiWd 9 80 i '%WgigxjWsaayMpej D a%auid j&j-apfJWuiNWeaoJ"D

M M M M i jld 8TWW 80*&/L'fkWq!gxjWsaay apelqjW3 aWfiauld j-apW6uiWe:)q":)
a? - ° ? - x
TaC
WaF
WQE
AhF
,yam L 4DE - CeE
W `??
I UT LADE -- CREAK
I' CREED CaF
WaC Cr Cz
n Su ??-
- / V . W(F AhF
W E CaF
?-? WaE
T
Cx Cep
COL CeC
?WaE /
WaF' TaB AhF
I WaE \ : 'y, I
1 Ad
C C ?? A ( C e E/
SOILS LEGEND
® Su - SUNC?OK, 0 - 2% SLOPES
CaF - CHANDLER, 25 - 45% SLOPES
- a - CONSERVATION EASEMENT
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
l cosys em Alleghany County, North Carolina
PROGRAM SCO #070708801
?Q FIGURE 6
dH SITE GLADE CREEK
g Gs sy?? NRCS SOIL SURVEY
DATE: JULY 21, 2008
cif 'Pd
s WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
500 250 0 500
8388 Six Forks Rd. Suite 10119) 870-0526
" Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX [phone]

t I
s .'

V ;

HYD ROLOGIC LEGEND
STREAM
------- TRIBUTARY
p Z ?A
d o q?
dv? SITE
.n
0,
t
500 250 0 5

IN

140- North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
Ecosys em Alleghany County, North Carolina
. PRaua SCO #070708801
FIGURE 7
GLADE CREEK
HYDROLOGIC FEATURES
DATE JULY 21, 2008
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
8388 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0528
- Raleigh, NC 27815-5088 FAX [phone]
i1

r
.

.

GLADE CREEK
UT GLADE CREEK
i w,

1
F
I
WETLAND DELINEATION LEGEND
EXISTING WETLANDS

- 'V1 ,f
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
ag' Glade Creek Restoration Site
S?TS eII1 Alleghany County, North Carolina
IT . ai ? k, SCO #070708801
q
y ?'O
1ko
dfp SITE
} -P
d
S
200 100 0 200
FIGURE 8
GLADE CREEK
WETLAND DELINEATION
DATE: JULY 21, 2008
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
8386 Six Forks Rd. Suite 10119) 870-0626
Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX [phone]
,
,
,
•
,
,
•
•
UT GLADE CREEK
' GLADE CREEK
?
•
i
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES LEGEND
WHITE PINE PLANTATION ® FALLOW FIELD
® FLOODPLAIN POOL DISTURBED/CUTOVER COMMUNITY
B CHESTNUT OAK FOREST _ MONTANE ALLUVIAL FOREST
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
4Alleghany County, North Carolina
COSyS eTri
A?ow 1 1
-?? r:?1ic'11'(,r.?? ?? SCO#070708801
FROORAM
110.1. qq FIGURE 9
d" SITE GLADE CREEK
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES MAP
Y DATE: JULY 21, 2008
01-
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
N 400 200 0 400
8388 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0528
Raleigh, NC 27815-5088 FAX [phone]
1461 - I
'!
¢
a,
0
00
0
0
N
N
O
C
3
vi
LX
W
Y
a?
U
Y
N
U
a?
v
s?
C7
'a
J
Cr
C
.3
L
0
U
r I _
+
R fi4 • A R?ar rr ?? I'!, ??: ?' ,l ^^NNVV 1ti
;
5 _
M', `? - ^.?' Be?K '+`f ? ?\???)i? ;.) 1?Ir?l /!`ti.?? ??\\\? ? ?1? { r, ?: `e??C ?,. )\?\ L S?• ! ? r'
rN J J I )' 1 ?. 1 I Ij r! r\ ? - i I r
] s
i11 4? -- t,PQ /lt? i`?l _ 1 )..`,. I-;. L ??C I ? C `\. > ? 1 "?; } C 1r, \•
r
.•3A1 I
,? 1?.c-•c ?( l-"?' ` t I.+? ? ? ? Il ,?i ?I, I _ ?.i '?C1 ? 1 (, `\'6?, t \ ? _
... / Z , SITE
+ 5?'Zr???/' :/Jlr F-?---?• r r/?)r,' - ? ? ?1 ? :1'?r ..1`x•1 j??`.'
•?v ? _???_ v- ?Li.11 ?$?i ? .vvvt ??:_,,??.? 1 ?1? ,1j`?r+
- dell _ ,1 ? 1 V ? ? ? v
511,
N 61
,l O ?j Ill r\ } ?y?ocL. Z,\ ?'???.. -\? •, ' `? -C?\- 1?/<AC '
\, , ?' ? I i?-?S -•!v'" R`?'?'.i , ?w y'fl0 _ V? ,. ? ? ...'L, al 5• I ? i r? .//? ' ,
USGS Quadrangle Map Whitehead, 1998
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
Ecosys em Alleghany County, North Carolina
SCO #070708801
vaooww
GRgS
FIGURE 10
SITE Sy
RD Z? REFERENCE SITE
~
C9?9? BASIN CREEK
VICINITY MAP
DATE. JULY 28, 2008
o?G$o?c WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
2000 1000.0 2000
" 8386 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0526
Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX [phone]
""°°'" VNI-IOUVO HiHON `AiNnoo S3>1-1IM e
69£9-oa (BIB) xvi £191Z ON Vpi4E LII2 SttSOo ? §
I °c b o T
9290-o LB BIB IOT e Tns Va W[soa =IS 99£8 N 3 g W
dVN a3HS831`dM N D
N3380 NISVO a il
Da SWUHNIONH DMI InSNOD QxVM
-;
?a
W
Q
W N
? W
y
WW
W °.
< 0?
1 \

m m r m r= m= = = r= m= r= m
X111.1 ` j/?: ChE `?Il l Ch
H i lilt,
I
A
GRASSY GAP RD v?
ChE GrD
GrD
REFERENCE
REACH SITE
ChE c
w,
c9A
CeF 'Po
SOILS LEGEND
ChE - Chestnut-Edneyvllle complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes, stony
WIM, GrD - Greenlee-?stln complex, 3 to 40 percent slopes, very stony
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
^Fosys em Alleghany County, North Carolina
. it 1 <W i t' I SCO 4070708801
PROORMI
GRARDa FIGURE 12
SITE 19 REFERENCE SITE
BASIN CREEK
NRCS SOIL SURVEY
DATE: JULY 28, 2008
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
" 500 250 0 500 _
M 8386 Sig Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0526
„ Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX (919; 870-5359
'd
-A
GRASSY C
_
.?
REFERENCE
REACH SITE
_--.-TRIBUTARY
BASIN CREEK

TRIBUTARY-
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES LEGEND
MONTANE ALLUVIAL FOREST
M ACIDIC COVE FOREST
9RASSy
AP RD - ? Q
0
400 200 0 400
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
8388 Sig Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0526
> Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX (919; 870-5359
c
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
? ?COSys em, Alleghany County, North Carolina
?' r ? < s ` SCO #070708801
rwcRw
FIGURE 13
REFERENCE SITE
BASIN CREEK
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES MAP
DATE: JULY 28, 2008
tt
J
?m
2860
"? 445\ e 1JYw (?`l
V 775 L. ` b• % t 7 &h.
'Pli
00
( °? •v j _ ?? ??
Creek =2- } _! i r z ?a3i
rte':. X
•?J;t
'tom , r _ 7` ???J
SITE
t
No ' _. BM
G1adcQree 2834• l
?i?+ z \ ...td5t!``? - _ • '? ?? 2834 !
731
USGS Quadrangle Map Cumberland Know, 1981
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
`ECOSyS em. Alleghany County, North Carolina
" -.? a ,I • + :' + '? SCO 4070708801
rR001MY
aliI, FIGURE 14
REFERENCE SITE
?? ?PUGNNRD UT TO LITTLE PINE CREEK
VICINITY MAP
SITE DATE: JULY 21, 2008
•
?P,d tiLAD VALLE'? RD
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
2000 1000 0 2000
" 8386 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27815-5088 FAX [phone]
e ?
0
0
A
? Z
i
S
0 0
AT RS ED A EA
,74 CRE
.051 SQ MIL S
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
,Sys em . Alleghany County, North Carolina
3 ;11ff tl : ,: SCO #070708801
raoartw
FIGURE 15
REFERENCE SITE
J P?GNN R?
UT TO LITTLE PINE CREEK
WATERSHED MAP
SITE DATE' JULY 21, 2008
9,F •
?d GLAD vAt-?-EY RD WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
500 250 0 500
8388 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101919) 870-0528
Raleigh, NC 27815-5088 FAX [phone]
Cx
TaB Ad
WaC
Cx
Gu Gu
Wa
WaE ChF2
?WaC
ERE E
Gu REA H S TE
WaE
-- W GC
,r \ I
WoF C
d J p V ALLEY RD
GLA
WaE
WaE
SOILS LEGEND
WaE - WATAUGA, 10 - 25% SLOPES Wo.C - WATAUGA, 6 - 10% SLOPES
Cx - C?DORUS, 0 - 2% SLOPES CeC - CHESTER, 6 - 10% SLOPES
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
ECOSyS eIri Alleghany County, North Carolina
SCO #070708801
vnoa?
FIGURE 16
REFERENCE SITE
d <^ 9d
v AVGHN K?
UT TO LITTLE PINE CREEK
NRCS SOIL SURVEY
SITE DATE: JULY 21, 2008
'p'd • GLAD VALLEY RD
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
05 500 250 0 500 ??
8386 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0526
" Raleigh, NC 27815-5088 FAX 919; 870-5359
1 ?
REFEI
P?

VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES LEGEND
MESIC MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST
M ACIDIC COVE FOREST
RD
SITE
•
400 200 0 400

GLADE V ALLEY RD
nseM North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
ECoAlleghany County, North Carolina
SCO #070708801
weooa?u
FIGURE 17
REFERENCE SITE
UT TO LITTLE PINE CREEK
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES MAP
DATE: JULY 21, 2008
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
8386 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 [phone]
Raleif*h, NC 27615-5088 FAQ .._919 870-5359
RD
?_Fi••`/l? J1/ \(r!-/?!J
??l ,, fl?.?-4i•, _ L. mss.: -`?.. HM/?U Y? ?? ? / 'I? rr?
Jr ?_ e
C- ? ; . ? ?r??;,;?, ,_.,?.,? t? : •t,: ? ?C - I? ,. r, s"?--??\ V? . : ` - J ice' : U? /,-`' • 1I,,
Jam; - S
toe
c . l St h 7p _? /
9 Coin
\ f alb -- .
USGS Quadrangle Map Crutchfield Crossroads, 1974
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
ECOSyS ern Alleghany County, North Carolina
anornwM SCO #070708801
OON LINDLEY R FIGURE 18
S? REFERENCE SITE
SITE UT SOUTH FORK CANE CREEK
VICINITY MAP
ti0 ?yr(? DATE: JULY 21, 2008
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
? zooo iooo o zooo W 8386 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0526
Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX [phone]

'-? i i
L_
d
-,
I?
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
ECOSyS em Alleghany County, North Carolina
aaoa+A" SCO #070708801
FIGURE 19
^ppN LINDLEY R REFERENCE SITE
SITE UT SOUTH FORK CANE CREEK
.o
t; O-
??°? ?tiG9?y? WATERSHED MAP
DATE: JULY 21, 2008
Hr Pfd
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
2000 1000 0 2000
5 8388 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0528
Raleigh, NC 27815-5088 FAX [phone]
T
1 r
I
NaD
_'. Na C
NaB
NaC
NaB CMB
?X NaD
GaB
REFERENCE
c, REACH SITE
?S
CMB
NaC
-o
NaB
?d Ch
?,R G B
NaC
-pd
NaD CMB GaB
SOILS LEGEND
NaB - NADF?RD-BADIN COMPLEX, 2 - 6% SLOPES
W NaC - NADFORD-BADIN COMPLEX, 6 - 10% SLOPES
"y North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
?:?. Alleghany County, North Carolina
t ? tP? z? ?? c'=? ??; ` r_ SCO #070708801
nioo?
??N LIN??, FIGURE 20
REFERENCE SITE
SITE UT SOUTH FORK CANE CREEK
NRCS SOIL SURVEY
DATE: JULY 21, 2008
rn ?d?
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
500 250 0 500 " ?Lll?
W 8386 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101919) 870-0526
Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX [phone]

i
........... % Nbb h, *11,
REFERENCE
REACH SITE
UT SOUTH FORK
CANE CREEK
Jil
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES LEGEND
MEXIC MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST
M FALLOW FIELD
J ?S
A s?-
SITE
400 200 0 400
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
Ecosys em Alleghany County, North Carolina
SCO#070708801
neoa?w
FIGURE 21
REFERENCE SITE
UT SOUTH FORK CANE CREEK
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES MAP
DATE: JULY 21. 2008
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
5 8386 Sig Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0526
> Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX (919; 870-5359

' UT GLADE CREEK ~.
' RAIN GR?UNDWAI
GAUGE GAUGE 3
.-..w._S IL
= BORING
1
' GROUNDWATER
AUGE 4
' M
00
0
O
N
00
Q1
.t]
t
W
LEGEND
STREAM
' U ....... TRIBUTARY
EXISTING WETLANDS
v
'Y
U
Q)
? ?,;Py 44
%A
dN SITE
o ? ?o
' ° " 200 100 0
U "
o -
,u
PREFERENCE
SOIL B?RI?
4s? -041e
GR?UNDWf
GAUGE 1
ROUNDWATER
GAUGE 2

North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Glade Creek Restoration Site
T,-E,cOSyS em, Alleghany County, North Carolina
SCO#070708801
PROOPM
FIGURE 22
GLADE CREEK
WETLAND DETERMINATION SAMPLE
LOCATIONS WITH GAUGE LOCATION,
DATE: JULY 21, 2008
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
8386 Sig Forks Rd. Suite 101 [phone]
.? Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX [phone]

C

0
N
O
N
3
v
ar
v
V
v
?U
Q W
W J
jr H =
h ?
upi &
30'
15'
UTM _
1,75' I Dm = 3'
5,5' __j 2,5' 3' 8' 3'
RIFFLE SECTION
15'
,
3 ?
2,5' L5.5'
Ww = 30 FT
Ax = 56.6 FT'
L7
Q W
W J
w
30'
18' 12'
4rj Dmm = 4' gt1
2?
16'-- 4' i -- 10'
POOL SECTION Wsw = 30 FT
Asp = 68 FT'
N. North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
r
Glade Creek Restoration Site
EF. OSyS em Alleghany County, North Carolina
n ancement SCO #070708801
1?24w -
raoaRw
FIGURE 24
dN SITE
GLADE CREEK - LOWER
TYPICAL DESIGN CROSS SECTIONS
.p. DATE: JULY 21,2008
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
-.J1Vfff ^ I NOT TO SCALE

8388 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27815-5088 FAX [phone]
E l7
W
w 3
? J
F-
V1 =
H
li lpi
3.50'
1,75' 1,75'
3331 DWF = 0.30' 3,331
1' 1.50' 1'
RIFFLE SECTION
Way = 3,50 FT
Aw = 0.8 FT'
f 0
w
w 3
J
v? _
3'
1,50' 1.50'
Dmm = 0.50'
L
POOL SECTION
Ww = 3,0 FT
Asff = 1.0 FT'
North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
r
Glade Creek Restoration Site
EF osys FM Alleghany County, North Carolina
n anceMmeent SCO #070708801
FIGURE 25
'°" S
}
d ITE JUT GLADE CREEK - "B" TYPE CHANNEL
TYPICAL DESIGN CROSS SECTIONS
,p I DATE: JULY 21, 2008
NOT TO SCALE
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
8386 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX [phone]
1
1
1
1
f ?
W
w 3
J
r a
F-
w
2.5' 2.5'
4??7i Dw = 0.43'
1 4.
1.75' 1.5' 1.75'
RIFFLE SECTION
Ww=5FT
Aar = 1.4 FT'
E 0
W
Li 3
? J
I-
V1 =
t? wi
4'
21375' 1.625'
,SCI Dpm= = 0,50'
1.•
2' -- 0.754-- 1.25'
POOL SECTION
W w = 4.0 FT
Asp = 1.9 FT'
?" North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
r
'? C Glade Creek Restoration Site
A0W E nllo sys emt Allegheny County, North Carolina
? SCO #070708801
'6y SITE
Qk,j ? G
N
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 26
UT GLADE CREEK - "C" TYPE CHANNEL
TYPICAL DESIGN CROSS SECTIONS
DATE: JULY 21, 2008
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
8388 Six Forks Rd. Suite 101 919 870-0526
Raleigh, NC 27615-5088 FAX (919; 870-5359
J

1

1
1

1

1

1
12.0 Restoration Plans
Sheet 1. Glade Creek Existing Conditions Station 0+35 to 9+80
Sheet 2. Glade Creek Existing Conditions Station 9+80 to 23+08
' Sheet 3. Glade Creek Restoration Plan Station 1+00 to 8+12
Sheet 4. Glade Creek Restoration Plan Station 8+12 to 16+80
' Sheet 5. Glade Creek and UT to Glade Creek Planting Plan
Sheet 6. Longitudinal Profile Glade Creek
Sheet 7. Longitudinal Profile UT to Glade Creek
1
L

L?
1
0

I

1

1

1

1

7
L

1
1
I-j

?Z?W 00 '6nn O:) ue d uoi Isalda :) ape lauid jW-apejWwnnjWe:)ojW
{(' `
i
M ?
i+
? ? 4
? ? ! a
s ? + ?..,. _. ...
li
?,/?.
?, ? ,r ?'
-..
,?

s - W r)
o?cs {{? r? era aez luau a Lim u VNIIOUVO HAJON `,kiNnoo ANVH0311 '
9890-ow (asss) wz •?me o? Ma sso'3 $ - W
Nbrld NOI1VIOlS3U $ _
.? NTM 30br1 J ® cn
?d S2I??NIOI?I? Ol?IS'Il1SI?IOO Q2IYM
T:T 'Wd bS:SO:Z 800Z/ZT/ZT '6nap-ueld UOReao4s9'd\NaaJD apelg\auid aj:Pn-apejE)\s6uimeaQ pe:)o4ny\::)
ese;-ace feu) xvs ewre og '?n?
9990-0" 618 Tot es *m OPOt Ze em
Da `gH,j2l NiDx2l ONiJ,'InsNOo CWM
"Mm
2 uu a VNI?08VO H1?ION `AlNnoo ANVHJ3I-ld
ualsAsor
Nb'ld NOllb'aOlS3li
w N33HJ 34br19
'i
to C4

i
n
F tt
3
8
i
?r 'G C
rr; ) a
.III
., 4t r
dl
y
r,
i
i

F -
w
2

em-01A ?sze3 xv.1 eva an 4qtpm Aso dNl?O?ldO Hl?ION `il1N(100 JINb'HJ3??d § LO
Ww-ug NV-ld ONIlNV-ld $ s w
od `s-daH NIDNrA DNI.L'IIISI oo CEHVM -? ?3??? 34d?0 o
I SO all
c^
m O ca
N z s aa)i
+f
IlJ o m° o N
a- t
LLJ
E o
d) a- in u
<yJ
0 1 ° o co
cn co a) .2
4) N 12 :=
0 2"! g rn 3: 1: co U) U)
IL W V1
1:3 U
I Ln > m ro o IL W
ca co
z Ca
cu 4 '? c E o ¢ (n
Rt' 1 O Q v
+d a N a> orooa'.?Z?o.o
OE ?o EN (/1
w. O ? E Z M q) cu m
0 -J C) 13
I a o c s ° ro `o c ZQY
?-?0Q
O
E o W r Z
75 Q)
dl 0 z v C3?ZF1-4
-
?? f ?E o o ca E aD `n cca -0
° 3ZWQ
.J J pl N E ° ' !2 a CC Og=d
hl ! d U (1) as ? o L) CL cNn cc v W U
Ucq?m2HU) MQMW LLj E Y Z W
\ ??II O O m Z?W W
Fi C LL E k pQq a1 Io Q
141 ' .. / N z-0 c Q E ZZZZW
o oo cu Q 'o o W W J W W
CJ) 0 'I,s I 11
*. o o E v? cu o M Uj F- C3
a) 'TO (n '0 1
Q-) lb (n
Z3 : Ez: cu
- -
\
CC? Cl
F ZU??Y
IC A rr N
Z
l7ZZZZZ
1• ??. Z c JNNNNN
O o
111 ?? ` \? I `? c5 F Ln rjl u
v) M
N E E y
lul 0) d Z y ?s ° N
I .0. U Q z
, o
td
r E
U) o
s F
C oX v a y c
CL W (6 C ? y v ': S "fl
N N C .S ? C `O `a S ?
e
m a \ I- U ty q 4cn
F M1ii: i E
h, O
o
O 3
m U)
O p v
.' ?> L sv' C !v
$ke
O N b c~C .C O
ctl
66.,.. - \ U. o y?. cd .mss • .C 3 .D ".1"+ y'?j
` Q E ti U S C C
^ta ?''? ?1%
y° fi o C
N CO
.V ti w a R. Q 'O C •r
,k, R O
?, w. Y tx$ f ?+Zs .,x X ? v S U ? O 5 v C h ? S S
z V C U Q? U? V
E
k j A y = co
c
b b
.0 C;
R,? , 5 ,rte .Q E •? 3 o a 3 0
E E b o c 3 o
•1 ?T^ 9 k ? k
i U z a?i
.? to
AIR,
MOO V Z y o C p v
v o s C h
U E y
O ? o p h 0 U)
7, y U
?? fU cd CY tl C S S
.r C C C C ." :'? Q
/j H o. U U 5 >C
T:J& £S:" 80(fIJWT 'fWU14UWld u Tsa JD a"\aui j"l-ap"6ul/"peaoind\:D
C)
0

00

O
0
+
(0

w?

i-
c o

N
'
A +
11,
x

i

V ?
?
° o
C N
N
w

o m
L
CL Q
4
o
Q +

IF?

r? C.
o o
o co
J LL
to

a
s N
o _ o
v?
EL
(D
ca
V
O
O

--____..
O
0
CO d' M N O O w 1? CU to 'd' M N p N
r?, 0 0 0 O CO t0 Cfl Cfl Cfl Cfl
u') LO LO LO LO L
O U) Lo Lo Ltd Lo Ln Lo Lr) Lr) Ln l!)
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
(4001) UOIIBA813
. . . . . ? . . .
m
O

+0
Cfl
ti
+

+ O
u
N

w LO
O
? O
Cf)
+ LO

m

L LO

V
F- + O
? N N
Z3 0 +
`n
?

- o
++ O

AMA +
CY)
LO
O
O
O M
...
O D) M o
L

CL
''"' •-
O 40
•X M O
- W
1 ti
N ?

E- LO
O
Aw a) N

LO
O o N
? °
-- F-
+ o
N
?
70
N + LO
? O ?
Q
? +0
-
? r

N
+ t1)

O O

+ to
O

+ O
N O C? 00 (. C? LO ?• M N r- p O 00 O
00 00 00 I` Imo- N. co (D
0 0 0 0 LO LO
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
(4001) U014BA013

W

U
W

?
?
Z
W ?
Z

W
~
?
O

Z
W

a

U

W

fn

m

13.0 Appendices
Appendix 1. Restoration Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Restoration Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3. Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. Restoration Site Cross Sections
Appendix 5. Reference Sites Photographs
Appendix 6. Reference Sites NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 7. Reference Sites Cross Sections
Appendix 8. Reference Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 9. Hydrologic Gauge Data Summary, Groundwater and Rainfall Information
Appendix 10. Restoration Site Soil Boring Location Map and Log
Appendix 11. Boundary Survey and Conservation Easement Dedication Map
Appendix 12. Categorical Exclusion Approved Check List
Appendix 13. Historic Photos
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
r
Appendix 1. Restoration Site Photographs
r
1
1
r
r
r
1
1

P 71'4T41 I X!` ?'
XV,
`fi,..< @ 'ate -?, J? .. 13
,y o
ay1 ? a ?'
Y ? 1 r r ? Z ? L•F€? (I J -? _ -1 ice;
R} ,4Sj s
- X0,
Se 5 y?
'r, FJ? fe { 1. P dis?y ?
sp °?. ' I _a W 3(.J

Y ?5? R ?Fy Y?r' tyq?t jY i .P k?A ??4
d
to
pr„
u7:
I k1

Glade Creek, looking downstream near top of project site, erosion on the outer (right) bank.
Glade Creek, second beaver dam.
7?.
t ?.

{ T
?
l

Yi 1 K S
cll.?r?k t 3 •' ? Ei?M gy %'? y9 y '? ?.

1 J 't6
t^ x 'L
F
Glade Creek, looking upstream, wide section downstream of debris at end of project site, stream pushed against
the valley wall.
Glade Creek, looking downstream, at pool with sharp bend in the middle of project site.
f ?
?- k ^w „?'?;, '';.. ??? ? 4 , +.v kK?.. i e•? ? ? ? r ?1?1 ? ? F ? ? ?? ACA' ? ?:1? ? ?'f?
,^'
! 1
-mow
, 'N4
p"NN
4 M d
is: f ?dc -F
«? 1 k 4 e
f
4!, "•i+
'j, j
n ..
ate' _ :?h 99 ".I } b? .1 yr? "F +n
+ A? c.• •???' ?, .x[1.7 /
UT to Glade Creek, looking downstream, in "B" type portion of channel.
?w
,'+
E , ?s t??
k
3Y.?
Cy

UT to Glade Creek, looking downstream, in "C" type portion of channel, near confluence with Glade Creek.
* Additional restoration site photographs are located in Appendix 4, Restoration Site Cross Sections.

1

1

0

1
r Appendix 2. Restoration Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms

F1
LJ

1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s) C. Sheats, K Montieth, J. Hartsell
Do Normal Circumstances exwl-5 es No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es ®o
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: April 2, 2008
County: Allelhany
State: North Carolina

Community ID wetland
Transect ID: wet an 1
Plot ID:
VFC.VTATICIN
Dominant ant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant ant Species tra mi n icator
1. Impatiens capensis herb FACW 9.
2. Woodwardia areolata herb OBL 10.
3. Carex sp. herb 11.
4. Elvmus histrix herb UPL 12.
5. Dichant elium clandestinum herb FACW 13.
6. Juncus e/1usus rush FA W 14.
7. Ranunculus alleghaniensis herb FACU 15.
8. Sisyrichium mucronatum herb FACW- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) >50%
Remarks:
fF"Rni.()GV
ecor Data scn in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland o ogy Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _
Local Soil Survey Data
z FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 1 (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows wetland hydrology
i
1
1
Ll
1
1
1
1

SOM19
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Watuia loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (SubgrouFMESIC TYPICHAPLUDULn Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-3 10YR 412 loam
3-7 10YR 412 IOYR 316 many & prominent loam
7-12 IOYR 411 sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: '
_Istook Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
x Sulfidic Odor x Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Color, Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The soil shows hydric indicators
WETLAND DETERMINA'nON
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks The area is a wetland.
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes o
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek
Apphcant/Owner:
Investigator(s) C. Sheats, K. Montieth, J. Hartsell
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es ®o
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: April 2, 2008
County: Alleehany
State: North Carolina

Community ID wetland
Transect ID: w2-1
Plot ID:
VF;GF.TA TION
Dominant ant oecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicato
1. Scirpus cyperinus herb obl 9. Ludwigia alternifolia herb obl
2. Cornus amomum subcanopy facw+ 10.
3. Juncus effusus herb facw+ 11.
4. Carex sp herb 12.
5. Alnus serrulata su canopy facw+ 13.
6. Rosa multi flora vine upl 14.
7. Pinus strobus canopy facu 15.
8. Yernonia Aigantea herb fac+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 75%
Remarks:
1 T"Rni.nGV
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland o logy Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
z Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
z Water Marks
z Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: a Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
z Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
-
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows wetland hydrology

1
1
1

sons
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chandler silt loam Drainage Class: Somewhat excessively drainer
Field Observations
Taxonomy (SubgrouFMESIC 7YPIC DYS7RUDEP7S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 10YR 412 loam
2-4 10YR 712 7.SYR 416 few & prominent loam
4-5 2.5Y 312 10YR 416 few & prominent sandy loam
5-6 10YR 413 10YR 416 few & prominent sandy loam
6-10 2.5YR 412 10YR 416 common & prominent sandy loam
10-12+ 10YR 311 10YR 316 common & distinct sandy clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Istook Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
z Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
%Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks Ae soil shows hydric indicators
W h I'LAN D DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No
No
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks The area is a wetland
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek Date: May 23, 2008
Applicant/Owner: County: Alleghany
Investigator(s) C. Sheats, K Montieth, R. Moore State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es Transect ID: w3-
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID:
If needed explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Snecies Stratum Indic
1. Salix nigra canopy obl 9. Dicanthelium clandestinum herb faces
2. Salix serffcea subcanopy obl 10.
3. Alnus serrulata subcanopy facw+ 11.
4. Cornus amomum subcanopy facw+ 12.
5. Juncus e?usus herb facw+ 13.
6. Impatiens capensis herb facw 14.
7. Carex sp, herb 15.
8. Solida¢o sp. herb 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 67916
Remarks:
ITVDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland o logy Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
z Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
a Water Marks
_Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
a Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 (in.) _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows wetland hydrology
son's
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Suncook loamy sand (Biltmore) Drainage Class: Excessively drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgrour ESIC 7YPIC UDIPSAMMEN7S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Hori zon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-10 2.5Y 412 10YR 314 many & prominent silt loam
10-12+ 2.5Y 312 10YR 416 common & Prominent silt loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Istook Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
g Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
i Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The soil shows hydric indicators
WE 1 LANG lll:'1'ERN1NA170N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? E ]No
Remarks The area is a wetland It is an overflow channel to Glade Creek.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek Date: Apri12, 2008
Applicant/Owner: County: Alleghany
Investigator(s) C. Sheats, K. Montieth, J. Hartsell State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es o Transect ID: w4-2a
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID:
ff needed, explain on reverse
VFGF,TAT10N
Dominant ant Species tratum Indicator Dominant Plant SDecies Stratum Indicator
1. Onoclea sensibilis herb faces 9.
2. Juncus effusus herb facw+ 10.
3. Rubus sp. herb 11.
4. Solidago sp herb 12.
5. Rosa multi/lora herb up/ 13.
6. arex sp. herb 14.
7. Lolium sp. herb 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
%No Recorded Data Available Wetland Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
z Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) z Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows wetland hydrology
1
1
1

r
t
r
SOif,S
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Suncook loamy sand (Biltmore) Drainage Class: Excessively drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (SubgrouFMESIC 7YPIC UDIPSAMMF_NYS Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 10YR 412 loam
2-4 IOYR 413 10YR 416 common & prominent loam
4-6 10YR 412 IOYR 416 common & prominent loam
6-12+ 2.5Y 412 10YR 416 common & prominent loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Istook Concretions
_Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The soil shows hydric indicators
wniu"L imi1:KM1NA110N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks The area is a wetland.
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek Date: April 2, 2008
Applicant/Owner: County: Alleghany
Investigator(s): C. Sheats, K. Montieth. J. Hartsell State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es ®o Transect ID: w5-4
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID:
If needed ex lain on reverse
VF;(:F.TATTnN
ommant ant Species tra m Indicator Dominant ant pecies tratum Indic
ator
1. Salix nigra subcanopy obl 9.
2. Alnus serrulata subcanopy facw+ 10.
3. Carvx sp. herb 11.
4. SOZfdaRo sp herb 12.
5. Fescue sp. herb 13.
6. Po um sp. herb 14.
7. Allium vineale herb facu 15.
8. Cuscuta sp. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) >50%
Remarks:
ff"Rn1,0C.V
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Weiland Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
a Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
a Water Marks
z Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
a Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: at surfac (in.) _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows wetland hydrology

1
1
1
t

SOTf .S
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Suncook loamy sand (Biltmore) Drainage Class: Excessively drained

Taxonomy (SubgrouxMESIC 7YPIC UDIPSAMMEN7S Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 10YR 312 silt loam
5-12+ 2.5Y 311 10YR 316 many & prominent silt loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Istook Concretions
_Histic Epipedon
x Sulfidic Odor High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils

_Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The soil shows hydric indicators
Ty L' 1 LLVl\ L "r'i I ]VjKIV"A 11UN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ej No
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? No
Remarks The area is a wetland
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek Date: April 2, 2008
Applicant/Owner: County: Alleghany
Investigator(s)' C. Sheats, K. Montieth, J. Hartsell State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es o Transect ID: w6-3
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID:
If needed, explain on reverse
VF,C.'VTATtnN
ommant ant Species tratum Indicator Dominant ant Species. Stratum Indicator
1. Salix nigra subcanopy obl 9.
2. Physocarpus opulifolius herb fac- 10.
3. Carex sp. herb 11.
4. Solida?o sp herb 12.
5. Acer rubrum canopy ac 13.
6. Persicarea sagittatum herb obl 14.
7. Panicum sp. herb 15.
8. Cornus amomum subcanopy facw+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) >50%
Remarks:
HynROT.Of Y
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
z Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
z Water Marks
a Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows wetland hydrology
son's
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Suncook loamy sand (Biltmore) Drainage Class: Excessively drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (SubgrouFMESIC 7YPIC UDIPSAMMEN7S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions

inches Hori zon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) ,
Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-4 10YR 312
loam
4-9 10YR 312 10YR 416 few & faint loam
9-12+ 10YR 411 10YR 416 many & prominent fine sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Istook Concretions
_Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Color, Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The soil shows hydric indicators
WETLAND DETF:RMMATInN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks The area is a wetland.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek Date: April 2, 2008
Applicant/Owner: County: Alleghany
Investigator(s) C. Sheats, K Montieth, J. Hartsell State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? r-Tesl No Community ID upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es M Transect ID: wetland 1, 2, 3
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID:
If needed explain on reverse
VFC.VTATinN
Dominant ant Species tratum Indicator Dominant ant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus strobus canopy face 9.
2. Rosa multillora vine upl 10.
3. Juncus etfusus herb facw+ 11.
4. Solidago sp. herb 12.
5. Fescue sp. herb 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 20%
Remarks:
1I"Rni.n(:V
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
a No Recorded Data Available Wetland o logy Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows no hydrology
s

1
1
LJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
t

1
1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chandler silt loam Drainage Class: Somewhat excessively drainer
Field Observations
Taxonomy (SubgrouFMESIC TYPICDYSTRUDEPIS Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12+ 10YR 313
loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Istook Concretions
_Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Color., Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The soil shows no hydric indicators
0KFERMUNATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes o
Remarks The area is a not a wetland
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No I
t
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek Date: April 2, 2008
Applicant/Owner: County: Alleghany
Investigator(s) C. Sheats, K. Montieth, J. Hartsell State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? r-rels No Community ID upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es Transect ID: w4-2a
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID:
If needed explain on reverse
VFC.F,TATION
ommant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant SDecies Stratum Indicator
1. Betula niQra subcanopy faces 9.
2. Rhododendron maximum subcanopy fac- 10.
3. C2l g ichum acrostichoides herb fac 11.
4. Solidago sp. herb 12.
5. Acer rubrum canopy fac 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 60%
Remarks:
HVDROI,OGV
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows no hydrology
t
i
f
s
s
SOHN
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Suncook loamy sand (Biltmore) Drainage Class: Excessively drained

Taxonomy (SubgrouFMESIC 7YPIC UDIPSAMMEN7S Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
inches Horizon fMunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure
etc

0-3 10YR 3/3
3-6 10YR 413 ,
.
lime sandy loam

6-12+ 10YR 713 10YR 316 _ _ _ dine sandy loam
common & faint loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Istook Concretions
_Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils

_Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks Zhe soil shows no hydric indicators
W E'1'LAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes o
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks The area is a not a wetland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek Date: April 2, 2008
Applicant/Owner: County: Alleihany
Investigator(s) C. Sheats, K. Montieth, J. Hartsell State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? -777
o Transect ID: w5-4
®
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID:
f needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant ant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant ant Decies Ttratum Indic
1. Betula nilra subcanopy facw 9.
2. Rhododendron maximum subcanopy fac- 10.
3. Polystichum acrostichoides herb fac 11.
4. Solidago sp. herb 12.
5. Acer rubrum canopy ac 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 60%
Remarks:
AYDROI,O(' V
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows no hydrology

1
1
1
s

SOUIR
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Suncook loamy sand (Biltmore) Drainage Class: Excessively drained

Taxonomy (SubgrouFMESIC 7YPIC UDIPSAMMEVn Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
inches Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure
etc

0-3 10YR 3/3
3-6 10YR 413 ,
.
fine sandy loam

6-12+ 10YR 313 10YR 316 fine sandy loam
common & faint loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Istook Concretions
_Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
_Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colon Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The soil shows no hydric indicators
Wh'I'LAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes o
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks The area is a not a wetland
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No I
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek Date: April 2, 2008
Applicant/Owner: County: Alleghany
Investigator(s): C. Sheats, K. Montieth, J. Hartsell State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es o Transect ID: w6-3
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID:
(If needed explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant ant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant ant Speciesatum Indicator
1. Pinus sirobus canopy face 9. Juncus effusus herb facw+
2. Lolium sp. herb 10. Cardamine sp. herb
3. Alnus serrulata subcanopy facw+ 11. Galium trillorum herb face
4. SolidaAo sp. herb 12. Duchesnea indica herb NI
5. Saltx nigra subcanopy obl 13. Cornus amomum subcanopy facw+
6. Pannicum sp. herb 14. Rubus sp. vine
7. Allium vineale herb face 15.
8. Cirsium sp. herb 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 29%
Remarks:
ur"R(4111(,V
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
-Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows no hydrology

s

s
s

SOHN
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Suncook loamy sand (Bilhnore) Drainage Class: Excessively drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (SubgrouFMESIC TYPIC UDIPSAMMEM Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
(inches) Horizon Lthnsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure
etc

0-2 10YR 312 ,
.
loam
2-9 10YR 73 loam
9-12+ 10YR 513
Erne sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Istook Concretions
_Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
_Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma ColorE Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The soil shows no hydric indicators
W EULAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks The area is a not a wetland
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No I

11

1
1

a

F

1

1

F
E,
1

Appendix 3. Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
1

1

North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
Date: .-.7- - 0 Project: C ?- V Latitude:
Evaluator: K ro Site: -lucf - C.-k Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or Perennial if > 30
County:
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent I
( Weak
L Moderate
V. Continuous bed and bank 0 __
_
2
2 Sinuosity !
_ 0 i 1 2
i
3. In-channel structure: rif 17e-pool sequence 0 1 L 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting !
5. Activelrelic floodplain .....0 _
0 _ 1 1 L 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 I 1-
7. Braided channel w l4? 1 _ 2
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0
-
9. Natural levees t'p i l I 2
_
i 10. Headcuts - ; (Oj I 1 I 2
11. Grade controls ( 0 i 0.5 j
12. Natural valley or drainageway ; 0 0.5 I
Strong
3
3
3 I
3 j
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS j yo - 0 ; Yes z:r
map or other documented evidence. !
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = I I )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 l- j- 2 j
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or ( 0 2
! Water in channel - dry or growing season
16. Leaf litter I ?
:5 0.5

17. Sediment on plants or debris _
-
_ I
18.Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) i
`19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic
feahmes) present? 0 i 0.5 1
No = 0 Yes - I :5
(
C. Biology (Subtotal=
0
20'. Fibrous roots in channel I i 2 1 0 _?

11. Rooted plants in channel
L
i
2 j
1
0
??. Crayfish 0.5 j 1 J 1.5
23. Bivalves 1
_
--
24. Fish 0 0.5 I .Y j
! 25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) I 0 I 0. 1 ` 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton --- 0 I ?_ ( 3
28. Iron oxidising bacteria/fungus, W~? _ 0 0.5 1.5
L?29'. Wetland plants in streambed
.bi._?_..n__J j FAC .j FACW=0.75 OBL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other= 0
__.L..__..........,..r........':.. ..-...-r!n..A..1-+-
........ ....................... p...a.a..,., w ..r....... r....- r_-°- -- ° ?- - - - - r -- ---- --- _. ,
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
15-t Cdr, ,m S V114 J' J w , +?N yo al +?? ? ? Q S
C? S
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form. Version 3.1
.,,..f,.
Date: 4- - Z - o 3 - Project: CC K Latitude:
Evaluator: CS 1< th J- Site: U r 4u Longitude:
Total Points: &14C4_, C' ? Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: e.g. Ouad Name:
i >_ 19 or Perennial i > 30 A 11 o VI a,1
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
i !
Moderate Strong
1. Continuous bed and bank 0 I ( I 3 j
2 Sinuosi _ J
1 3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
j 4
Soil t
t
b 0
I I Cfj -4, j 2 1 3
.
exture or s
ream su
strate sorting 0 j I 2
5. Activelrelic floodplain + 0 2 3
i 6. Depositional bars or benches ! 0 1 I 3 j
7. Braided channel 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
j V. Natural levees 1 0
- 1
I 1
2 3
3 f
10. Headcuts j 0 2
I _
3
11. Grade l valley
112. Natural valley or drai ewa 0
0 ?- ?
u. aecona or greater oraer cnannel on existing USUS or NKC:S I No i Yes = 3
map or other documented evidence.
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydroloav (Subtotal= % , 5 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 _ _1 3
i 15. Water in channel and> 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or Zrowm season 0 1 3
116. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 _0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 .5 1.5
j 18. Organic debris lines or piles (wrack lines) j t
0 1 0.5 1.5
j 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1 W_
No = 0 Yes = - ;
C. Biology (Subtotal = (o
)
j 20'. Fibrous roots in channel 3 i 2 0
21 . Rooted plar?tr in channel 3? j 1 j 0 {
22. Crayfish 0.5 1
- j 1.5
! 23. Bivalves l 1 2 3
! 24. Fish
125. Amphibians

L2 6. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance)
j 27. Filamentous algae; ri h on 0.5 1

_
0 - fi- 915
0 _ O.S 1
I 2 1.5

1.5 _
3 j
128. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us. 0 -\V 1 1.5 j
i 29 °. Wetland plants in streambed j FACE 5 FACW=0.75 0BL=1.5 SAV= 2.0 Other = 0 j
uc?n? tv ana r rocus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. j
Notes: (use back of form for additional notes) Sketch:
"?i?,?1.lYnlt?'1r?f lCL?J• J ?V?YI-- r?

1
1
1
1
Appendix 4. Restoration Site Cross Sections
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u
1

'u

t

J

1
1
1

c
0
U
a)
a
E
cc
0
3
0
a
m
L
c
tm
c
Y
O
O
N
co
(0

0
0
N
O
T
T
0
0
O
0)
+ 0000
!- 5
0: w+
tl ! ' tm
j
i` = V
J ?I
j) o O
vt i4? D? ' (D _)
ik C l
y' V -- 0
G o
c _
O
V
O +'
LL Cj
a)
Q N N ?t M N N r 0 0
Y J 0
V LL Or 4) 04 00CO r-CD rCD 0NCD
U Z •V G> U- r M LO LO U) In `G: N N r 0
d Q ? ?
M m `
N MOO O t` O Co 00 O N
' N
00
N r- N
04 U-)
O
M
r
LLEaa
m m M m

?LLNrrON(nt!»OIq NM a O
Q Q co I- CO U7 V CO N O (A co
M^ 0^LO LO ^ N 0 M^ 0 M O
M LO J N N N N N N N N N N
(1001) uogena13
N
O
U)
Q E
N Y Y o
C6 a) a) Co
M
U U a,o
a? °
a) O
cu:)) NN a)
J a) to M
mZUCDcoco
N
m L
U m ? L ?
a ? O 7
? L
W J Q'
W
p O m
z 0- m r m
O M M M r ? U) N CD O) r C!) N 00 In to 00 M N r? N r Co N M? O [? O
H d v O r 0 O O 00 O r? 0 0 r M N O M N M r 0 r- M 0 N N N
Q W Nr- 6tir-r-6 44N(A6 w 6 , N4 6 C[')666r-- ONM
W 00 r- ti t` h? r- r- r- r- (D o 0 (D Co r- r- r- r- r- ? N N N r- O 00 O
J "" N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W
OF-- OtiMrnOO m tU)(Drn Tm tLoMC)0-V 0v-aNUo
?uJOr?prMMd'?td'tt??It 't LO In0(0(0MMOO N?rN
Q W + . + + t + t + + + + t + + + t + + + t + + t } + + + +
H W ; i 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 m T r T r M V V
r
J??,y t?f ?'I 1
f
C p k
O a
m _
L is
t d • a Y I`
L
O
F+
H
d
d LL 00 h (D O M N (O (D N N O M O O
? ? Q r- M N M? ? N? ti O r? m O O O
V J E
U -? o
D a) .q
'O YC9 MM W.-M(DOO(D I- r- "t W ?(D
0 e- N N N (M M V V v 4 M N 6
{Q a') Z v LL
m `
T L
_ .0 a) O) LO M V M (O 'cY V O to r a0 O 00 ? M
j LL M N ?- r (D M --- N N O
> (4
J
Q
0

a- n
m
E
Y Y
N
N N
`
(
p
:3 CO
U U
o rn
0-

J () m C) 3a °OQ°D
(6 f0
Q) O C O

m +
ZC7C70oMv
3 c
N
?
rl f0 L
m m r
Q)
O
J
tf)
M r c
? M V c
? ? T3 T
Y Y x (
m m ? (
Q
CD
0
+
Y
C
n
= T)
O 3
J 2
W) ? I
O
V
d
U)
N
N
p
U
O
ti
O
O
O
U')
O
d
d
V
C
O 0
M
O
N
O
O
r- 0 to a M N O M M
r` r- n r` r• rl- r- (0 0
LO to to to LO tt) to to to LD
N N N N N N N N N N
(IGGI) uOi;ena13
to
N
I I
co
W
"_- J J J
z m 0 O w O O a
O NNNNO V r-M0M(D V LO NNOrnvNWU')N(D -OtnM0MMM
F-OOOON? w toU.) w(DOtoOtoN LO MO(DNOhr-wNu-) N0toI-- w w m m
W (D (D V M M M M M M M M M N N N ? ? ? 0 0 0 O 00 G O O N (n (D (D (D (D (D D)
W O r? r f? ti ti t` t` f? ti t` r? ti ti h t` fD (O CD (D (D r? t` ti ti
W Y. to to to to to to to LO to to LO to to to to to to U') LO U-) to to LO 0 (n LO to 0 (n to U') to to 0 to
J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W
O F- N O O O to O N (D m O 00 M ?' (D 00 O N M to (D ti O N M to OD ?- N? 00 c0 ? N
?- W N 0 0 0 0 N N N N M M M M M ?t ?t to to u') to to (D CD (D (D (D (D O V
W + + + + + + + + + t + + + t + + t t + + + t + t t + + t t + + + t + +
? lL M N-,O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -
N
c
0
U
N
E
2
w
c
00
v
N
w
c
c
0
O
O
O)
00
2
X
0
O
c L
? a
0
U
c
m
r
a?
d
Q
O
rn
d .:
dLL ?NI- VMco MN V V:oN.--r-
Y Z' Q co (o v co of h v Ci m o
00
J E W
J O
:3 ID r
LL (7.?+.
0 r- CON U) (O (O LO M M O W r O M
'a Z 0 c LL- N M M M M M M O O O O
V ?
T r a+
_ .a d Cq V LO V N h 1? N M (O (n CY CO r
LL LO N N M M N N N N N N (%) N M
O
J
O
a 0
E
(D a) 2? m
7 2
UU cro00
w
a) 0 w O
3a-ooNrn ?
J m O 11 +
cOZC,?U` aoMao?
-o
3
M
Id L
U m co

1 ?

l
N21 i

J
J
LL
Y
Z
m 0 M M O
H
Q lL LL ? "a
Y Y x c
? m m N
Q Q
V
C)
7
Y
c
l4 ?
m
CO)
t ?I
C
O
J o
(9
eo I I
0
m
U)
rn
rn
O
U
O
(O
O
O
d
=
Cl)
O
O
N
O
r
0
(0 LO V M N O m Co
LV) LO LO LO M LO L! LO ')
N N N N N N N N N
(1001) UOIIBA013
L
O N 27)
? J 11 ?
O m w W co LL
LL
Z m O O 00 m
0 NNN(D O)I?N O)Oc-'? V NMMCD OWNto 0W(0 WW
I'O O1 V N O O) f- O LO N M Cl) IT CU O (O O CO N c0 O M Cl) M 0
W (O u7 N N O W M M M O O M M O N N N N ((') Lli CD h
> W r`tir`r`r•r`ocooo(fl(nmcal?rl?titi?nhl?r`r`r`r`
LL Lo u) v) v) w Lo Lo Lo Ln Ln Lo w u ) Lo Lo Lo w Lo Lo Lo Lo u Lo m Lo u) Lo
J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W
z
O W IM co o Lo W r M Lo N O' N m It r- m N (O O N It w M M
W O N O O O O r N N N N M M M M 'd' "t LO LO LO LO O N N
Q W o o + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
LL „ 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?-
fn
O
00
c
0
U
a)
E
(0
a)
C
00
C
s
C_
O)
C
Y
O
Q
Ln
M
?a
U)
O
Cb
x
o
0
C o
7

O
?0
c
a
u

74.

O n,?1

O
N
d
d LL
m ?r r w?o r V N"t V M M N r m N
O
G d a y O r t` !? Co Q) r V O) Ln 0 0 0 0 J
1
G7 J E LL
U ? d s zZ
41 Ye Qa?i
V
LL 0- MNMNIT Nlhr(0MMI- LO
O N M M ?' LO In V M N N O Q
m co co vr
0)
n
a
Q
7 N L
M

s ?.
_? N
LO ? N r Oo M 00 N C O lO O O O Ln M
O
D
Y Y (x6 N
m
m
LL r O N N N ?-- r O N <- M N N O O O N 0: >
Q Q
J
a ?

0

a?
E
Y Y
a) a) ?
N N ?
UUcr0`n
a) 0 0O?
2 2 O \ }
ZCD(DaoM?
c
0
o r
M 0
v
J
LO
ti
M
t
r
C
O
J
co
v
d
N
N
O
U

c
Imm
III
a
0
O
r
O
O
O
LO
d
d
V V
C
a0+
N
0
0
M
O
N
O
U) m M r- U)
r- n t` (0 (0 (0
N N N N N N
(4001) uO[JeAG13
M N
N
0 00
(D (0
Lo U)
N N
0 II II
U) U) of x
Z O co co WO > d W co
H H U O O
z
O N N N N w 00 r- m t- N w F,- V m N t0 r-- O O? n (0 m m r r O O V mq w m w
w Ln (('? Lo Ln 00 m t? h V tt (0 m t` M O O 't 00 O 00 r ti M M t- M O N It M t? Uf 00 -- N N
W M M N N N N N N r r O m t` tl- 0 0 LO LO LO LO 0 W t'- 00 CO O V• It V V V) r
t-(00(0 0 0 O(00(0(0(0(0(0 m(0 N N I- N
W LL Ln(nLO LO LnLO to LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LnUlmLo UlmV)mLO LO LO LO LnLnLnLO LO LO LO LO MLO Ln
J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W
Z
O?- OOOOOLnwmm I mNMLnr- mr N TomONNLo(OmNd'7 V'(Om?Lo MO
W LOM O O O O O r r r N N N N N M M co co co M? et It [t ?' LO Ln Lo LO LO LO to t- P- m
A N N + t t++.++++ t+ t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r
0
m
CD
O
c
o .
U '
d
U
C
l0
N
r
O 1
c :4
m
7j?y ",40 U d
x'la, Sfvls
_ ? yy.
1
Y S) }
° 7 N
n7 .r Y
r
C X ? F .? e ? . ? r ( C7
O o a N
V o" C
a
?? rn
Q a :? ` ? O
1 c? ,?;- b , k I tr ?
1 •? A ?U
m 77
ttrr rix q
x
d
227 wOOODmNM?nmNCD Nw q MmmNU7tOC? J
' daf/16 u700 m? n 0006 n n 16 M N - N O 00 j
_R J C Y
LL m z
Cl) C, Lo
LL 0m?IntoMMNNNN?ODLo00m V.MM- m < - m
' V N d V 7 44 44 V V C V M M N ?- .-- O m O
Z R r7
' LL
Q j D
m?
0OT ON(D nm e-- m n N m w to N n 117 n CMS cl 0YY m (cp
j LL M e- N N N ?- N 66 6 O .- m m D
> aQ?
O
n
CD
O
O
117 d
v
d
V
C
o to
v C3
0
M
C.
N
O
O
N O m co n Co LO -.41 co
n n n (O O M (O (D (o (D
In u7 t) (O 1f) (C) tO LQ LQ tO
N N N N N N N N N N
(1001) UOIJBA813
co Q (n _
Q ~
rn
n? E
N N (i 00
U U ty C)
>> N N (n N m
7 3 p O N N N
J a) !2 O ?- +
mZU1 C7wN??
_h
M
? N
(0
U m N t C
L~ _
W d (?
J (V
J m m J
fn II J
H Y ILL D
J U CD LL
O Z W II W Z m
z co Q Q m Q
0
F- F- M M M M M M O 00 N M N O CO ((7 N m m m m N N m a0 O V m m N - O N M M M N n M m M (M m 11) O m N m M(D 0 M m r M W M O M O M
? m N N N O N ? N M m IT 00 r O V n 0 LO lO LO
Q W ((1 6 6660006 n c}li C64 q 444444 V 6(p n r; n n n OD mO 66 NtD
W nnnf?nnmOOMmtDwww(b(oto O(OOO(Dto OtOO(OM(D mto nnnnnnnnn
W LL to 117 LO to LO LO LO (O (C) LO M to LO LO m to LO N7 (O LO (n LO (C) (C) 117 (C) (C') (O LO to to to 1C) 1.n to LO LO to 117 LO (f)
J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W
O r (O Lo O t_? m CO (A n n m N It (D M M 1(') n 00 O O N M q CO n 00 O N V O OD V O O n
F- W m n 0 N N N N N N M M M M M c} V V V (O (O 117 LO LO LO M (O O W (p O M M (O n a0 0 0 N
Q W o o + + + + + + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + t + + + + + + + + + +
LL 9 9 O O O O O O O O CD, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O- M CO
C
O
N
E
tv
(U
CSN
O
lU
w
C
cm
C
Y
O
O
O
O
OD
O
t`
i
° "
t
N
N
m
t
??
? O]
x =
o
o 0 cl
?
to

0 a
U c T
° I
s ?
m w
U!
a O
L
L
O
m
L
O
a+
U1
d

d LL O N (O V N w O m r• LO V M tf) (D r• r In o0 f- O O r W O

Il

Y

r
Q rO Oo (O (D 6 (D6 V V V V M6N?000rr00CD i
O ID U)
J Y
V o
?

'
N LL c
7«
Y Q 0 OO (M V O r M U0 M M O t'- N r• (M r OO r CO V M M V V N
Z j 0 lL O N M M V V V V er ('? [+] N N N r r 0 0 0 0 0 O O z
Q O O tO r
m- .4 N
Q a

'^
v ?
m
? L Q LL LL 'O -O
O
O
O r
? d
V
C
m
c) U)
V 0
O
M
O
N
O
X-C Q
LL r O M N (D LOM (D V NN V O to r-LO O OO N V MV M V
N O r N r .- M r r N r O N N N V O V (D

V
}
Q
' Y Y x c
m m y
`? ... O
O M OO N (D LO V M N
.
Q
Q 3 r- r- O O (D (D (D O CD (D
to to t0 t0 t0 (O LO t0 t0 to
N N N N N N N N N N
Q (1001) UOIIBA013
CO)
0
0
v x
LO c7
O
LO
1
1
1
t
4a ?
V y y E
C6 2
U V Qo
y y w 0 0
3 0 N V a
J N O O R? O 0 co m z CO v N d
N J
II J
LL
0 co O O 0 w ca m z
z
H F m
z
0 M M M O (O O M r, N O O N O m M 'T O O m V (D LO O N V V W OO N O V r n CD (D O O
N N N N N V N O V V O r O OD t0 V to O O to O V) OO OO V N (O Cfl (O O (D (D O O N CO W M 00
Q W N O O O O O r (O to M M N N N N N N M M V V V V LO CD CO M CD CO (D (O 1'- r-- OO OO OO O V
W r- r• r- r- r` r- r- to O (D O (D (D (D M (D (D (D m (D m (D co (D O CD (D O (D (D O Cfl (D (D (D (D (D (D r.-
w LL t0 LO LO LO (O LO (n LO LO LO (n CO (D to LO LO LO tO (D tO tD LO (O LO (D (O LO LO (O LO tO LO LO LO LO tO (n (O U)
J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W
z
O (D O O O v O a0 O _O r N V O tTJ O O V t0 n CIO O N t0 r M M O M O O O (D r M M
W 10 V 0 0 0 0 0 r r N N N N N N M M M M M M V V V M CO M M r• OD N ap (D
Q W t + +9000 + t t t + t + t t t + + t + + + + + + t + + + t t + + + + + + + + + t +
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000 O O000060 O O r r N
N
C)
00
c
O
;n

c t ..
c y,?..
O
LO
LO
M
N
co
C4
X"
?40
f
1= L r
01 ? It 'r {?
? t L3.
Q ?fL
r?, r;
r
W
d }
m
d LL M MV' r LO r N LO LO V f- (D 00 (0 O) h V' M O
J
O
M M N to r- co (0 V (O to m (O 'i m ? (0
J
L
J E
Y U.
4) z
O.dr• V 0t`toMCOr-r?r- MMMMm 00 LO r- 0)
? m a) 0)
IU <
Z V d Iy
0 6 6 6- N N M M M M M 6 M M M M M ?
?` L O
_ -O d N?? (D ? tt W O V LO M N W? O f? N ? CO ?
M M O N r- O r N N r- r- 0
U.
a ?
O ?
(A
J
N
LL O
W LO CY)

w
n? E
cc 00
U U 7
O 0) M O LO
3-o-OO(tLO
m z V V co v N
u
3 ?
C) m h ? c
J N
II
w L=L
H Y J i
wm
zz a o
m ? 00
Q M O M M M N (0 O O I- (0 N I- M M N O M M LO M I- M M O O d' c0 M M n tl t`
t- ?- L() LO LO LO N N M N M OR (0 M N O r- V CO 1- (0 N 7 O O O) O O N It M N m 7 M m O)
Q w N 0 0 M M n h t` (O LO LO LO LO LO M M N N N N N N N N N N r 00 00 O) 00 I` N
w tl t` M (O (O (D M (O (O M (0 (O M M (O (O O (0 CO O (0 (0 O (D O (0 (D (0 O (0 O O O O n
w LL Lf) LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO Ln LO LO LO LO N LO LO LO UO
J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
w
O F- M N 00 O LO O 't t-- N (0 O) N co ? co o) M (0 t- O) O N M LO (0 r- M O) N OD LO CO 'q
F LLJ ? O (0 O O N N N M M m M M co V IT IT It V LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO (O (0 N 0
w + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
~LL , Q000OO0000000000000000000000000.--
to

v
? ? M N
? LL a a
m m ? N
Q
W)
N
M
N
?• :
? rn
C II
O li
J v
N c
r' 'o
O
V
d
N
N
N
O
?
U
O
r-
O
O
O
LO
d
O d1
? tJ
C
N
0
O
Cl)
0
N
O
O
O(D a0 (D O to
Lo 0 M N 0
(0 O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lo to 0 LO LO LO LO LO LO Ln
N N N N N N N N N N
(4001) UOIIBA013

E? 4 ?? t
Co '4?
J4 p.
•? ` ?4 +P , i r r t S i
c Rg `
O° es 1 "``Si` M
M *4A
65
?Y ! V,, V
r,
U
Y
dLL - -- MN O w
L x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
dav)
J E
O
L
U.
N r M M M N O
Z= 0 LL 0 0 0 0 0 0
M
? t
.D
= w' d (D 00 O O
U. 0 0 0 0 o o m
M
J
I-
O
Y Y h
N N N
N N :-
a U a U ?
Q ?
N (0
C co
C7 C7 U
)00
? O O (fl N M N
NI-I-O? +
2z»o4
N
M L
CJ m h o c N
N
W
H
O
Z
Z
O
F-
W
J
W
Z
_O
H
F-
00 - M N
O Cl) O O
Y Y X
LO N
u
F- Cl)
U- N =
W
J O
J N J
:D
LL J Lo LL
-Ile
m Z W W Z co
0 m 0 0 co 0
(O 00 d O n M M O N N LLB O w (D
N (O CO l17 M O •-- M N OS M O
00 CO 00 OJ OO Op 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 O
In Ln ll? In lt7 In In In tf? to to In l(? L1? In
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O W O N M V "t Lo LO O I - r- m o m
f + + + + + + t + t + t + + N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-? N
O
N
LO
d
d
V
C
0
O
LO
0
r` O to 'It M N r- O
0 co co 0 0 co 0 0
N N N N N N N N
(1001) U014BA013
LO
M
C
0
U
N
a -
q
3
0
a
(D ,
w
c ?
C ?.
Y
O
O
CO
M
0 -#
O t
vim
1, r4,
y {
u? ? t
6 f ?!
lr s
a Pr?, F+p` je f pia'
: ? u?:$ y rte, ,f
Mi,
Sri=` '
LL N N O O
0 0 0 0 0 0
Cu Q fn
J 0
=) ty
LL ad?MM V N
Z _V Q LL O O O O O
U-
Q ?
m ?
M =
_ ? Q W V to CON LLB
l0 N 0 0 0 0 4
U)
J
Q
F-
O
H
N N ?
U U E
a (D
o L`a
a
N C7 U` wo
? O OONd.
Z D 7 o d
3 '? a
y
a) ? L
V CO to r C
O U) It N
O O O
? ? a a
Y Y x c
co m m
N
Q
Y
w co
I
? T+
C
C
O
N 0
C T
V
N
CO)
v!
0
U
LL
W O
J co
J LO
J N
II
U)
w LL U)
H J Y >
Z O Q O O
H m ? f- 1-
Z
(o d• N aD m cD N cD M O M O O-
? 1- (O O o O r- co M a7 CO O r- CO CO Lo to co N .- t
Q W 4 M M N N ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M to CO
? W coaoooLOOOaoaoaoao0oaoaoaoaoao000oao
W LL LO 0 0 0 LCD 0 LO 0 LO 0 to Lo 0 0 Lo Lo M to
J N N N N N N N N N N CN N N N N N N N
W
O 00 LO r 00 CA O N It CD t- t- aD CA O O N LLB
W O O N N N N N N N N N m m M
W + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
LL Oi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn
0
M
LO
N
N =
N
Y

0
In
O Ln O In O O O Ln q
l? L? ? ? ? lam() L? L?f') l(D
N N N N N N N N N
(1081) uOIJBA013
0
M
U)
N
O
N

C
O
U
T
C
ev
t
d
Q
L
O
U)
d
Y
G1
U
N
ey
V
O
F-
I
LL N N .- N ?-- O O
? X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4)CO)
J_ p
t
(D
U. 0 Q d N N ? ?- N C O
Z O LL o 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q ?
m ?
T t ?+
_?? ?- O N oD O O M M
LL???o?rocfl
U)
J
H
0
H
Y Y U)
U 0
M
Q -0-Q)
CCU' Uuio
N
A OCDNm
M NHF-?rn+
(D
UCO `L c
N °? m .. N .O
O) M N
o CO 0 0
?O
r ?.
s
?C m
i+ OL)
c 0)
O c
J '!
o,
C.
O
v
d
H
H
O
U
d
d
d
lf) _
r
W

0
r-
Lr)
-0 I n r 1 11 ill I I - =
,--- - o
-
0
Y Y
m m f6 m to O In O U( O Lq O Ul
cri ri N N •- O O O

N N N N N N N N N
(4081) UOIIBA013
IL _
LL
W CD
Q'
J LO 00
J N J
J ?? J
co Z
LL > LL
J > ?
Z 00 Q O0 0O Q 00
O NNCD W 0Nf-0 0 'llit NNM00I N
H M M 0 '.t 0 V- O- M O N N I r w M .-
W MN - .- 6 66000006 NM
? W a0 a0 ao a0 ao ap aD r a0 a0 a0 a0 ao 00 00 a0 a0 a0
W LL 00 000LOLOLOLnLn0U) LO 0LOLOLOLO
J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W
Z
O W _OOCOLOLO0?00_OO NM V Inr M0
~ W+ f t+ t f t f f+}} N N N N N+
LL Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U)
LO
N
C
O
U
N
a

co r
2
C
O

C
? a r
O a8:
Lh r
+ d
N

X
u
O
o
s

? .,; "per
9
7 °? le.' i { ? ? e
11 1- Av,
21 % Al
r
Y? 5.+`
cg?j`s
044 - ?'? ??
M
N ?
Y
CM
O c
J o
O
v
d
U)
N
O
V
U
LO
LL

a? N N ------

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p
0

J
(D
LL
J O
D d L lie
Z
LL (7 w 0
Q .' Q O <-- N Mq t m N r
66666666 Q 00 C't N

O Lq o o

?
_ d
N tT N N N N
O Q LL LL ? ?
Y Y fx0 c
O
LL N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m a) 06
Q Q 04
g N
O
J
a
l
- y
O
H
H
U- ~

J

LO cr-
J N J
I I ?
? J
LU LL J J
H J Y J C/) !Z' LL
Y
Z Om O W O 0 z
H F- m
z
?..H V.v1-"v000hr-r-OONv0wv
QW.6r-? hr-? tir`r-: 666M*0P-' r?r-*e`00
W ti?NNr- hr- htiNNtiNNNNr•N
W lL t!7 0 In 0 0 LO 0 LO W LO to LO 0 to In 0 0 0
J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W
Z
OW oooo.-M?`r vvou-)_wo v
N _ _
W + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N + }
LL 00000000000000000
N
LO O
LO LO
04 C*%l
(laal) UOIIBAal3
O
N
r
d
y?.
O
V
C
O ?
LO
O
LO
CD
t`
Ln
N

i

1

1

Appendix 5. Reference Sites Photographs
1
UT to Little Pine Creek (reference reach), looking downstream, good pattern and floodplain attachment.
a .

r
k
UT to South Fork Cane Creek, looking downstream, low erosion with good connection to floodplain.
*Additional restoration site photographs are located in Appendix 7, Reference Sites Cross Sections.

Appendix 6. Reference Sites NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms

1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: t,. T ProjectI ", ccc.Ck Latitude:
c. a t Longitude:
Evaluator: c?,' i z S?-cr?S s16e: ex ..- c C.
Total Points: ',1 L Other
Stream is et bast wwrnittent to ? . 2S County: V" &45 Cot,. e.g. Quad Name:
fie 19 or niel if 230
A. GegTgMhOIM (Subtotal =„30•b) absent VYeak
10. Continuous bed and bank 0 I 1 Mtxie to Strong
2
2. Sinuosity 0
-- 1
- 3
3. In-channel st ucture: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 I 1 2
5. Active/relic tloodplain j 0 1 2 i 3
6. Depositional bars or benches j 0 ! 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 ! 1 2 3
_
8. Recant alluvial deposits _
0 2 j 3
I, 9' Natural levees
~10. Headc uts j
1 ! ?_
2 3
3?
11. Grade controls ?
1Natural valley or drainagevvay 0
0 0.5
x_0_5 ! 1 •-
1 1.5
.5
13. Second or greater order channel on exisfina

4 USGS or NRCS map or other documented ;
evidence
j
No = 0

Yes 3
- marmnaae ORQ1es are nor rawa.- see oarwssm1b it, ngm
OI5
o. F, %AI%A -- -

i.__
14. Groundwater flow/discharge

0 -,--` . -

, 2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, gr i
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 j 2
16. LeaAitter t 1.5 0.5 ' 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 i 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wra(* lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (radoximorphic features) present? + No = 0 Yes =

2. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel i 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 ?i 3
24. Fish 0.5 1.5
25. Amphibians 0
M. 0.5
`
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
_ - 0
?-- 0.5 1 ! 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periph n 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacta6stfungus. 0 1 1.5
j95. Wetland plants in streambed I FAC = 0.5; FACW S ZQ,7_* OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other
- Rams ZU ano ZT TOCUS On Ale praaenoe Of uprana POOnsi, nvnI Ga . , . v.. u.v y.?-... . , . ._ ?. ----,-- ------
Notes; (use beck side of this torn for additional notes.) Sketch:
b
'Sip
J
V
a?? tad
iyP
h?
0
=
i??l

A. Geomorphology Subtotal ,® Absent
Weak
Moden?te
Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0
0 1
- , I 3
3
c 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
5. Active/relic floodptain - 0
0 1
2 3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
^-
i 7. Braided channel 0 CO 2 j 3_
--
_
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9' Natural levees 1
_ 2 3
10. Headcuts 0
--' 2 I 3
11. Grade controls 0 T 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin4n4i

USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
i
No = 0
'
?
Yes
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 0 1
114. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 -?- M 2 ?- 3
-
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, Qr
Water in channel - dry or growing season
- '^
0 1 3
I
16. Leaflilter
1 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris _ 0 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack tines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?--- No = 0 _
Yes 1.5
C. Bieloov (Subtotal =
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21", R plants in channel -3
1
0
22. Crayfish
23. Bivalves
?~--
. 0
y
1 2 1.5
3
24. Fish ?- -
CO ?0.5 1 1.5 -
25. Amphibians _0 0. 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note &owwty and abundance) 0
_^ ' 1
e_
4 1.5
-
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
---r-_..- _ 0
. - 1 1.5
zv-. vveuano plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
item 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional rotes.) Sketch: C
j C i
v A. t- C< ? lt(1/? C

J-T 4
C• jA)_
91.?" c
Cfc-t;k

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Forth; Version 3.1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
date: (l g project: -6 5j
, ., r k C,r letitude:
-4c L Longitude:
Evaluator. C(.. is <:?.e s She: It
Total Points: Other
Stroam is at bast u t muttent county: k4xmah. CG e.g. Oued Name'
if 2 19 or powqW if 2 30
A. GeomtQ o h a __(subtotal =_ 1 )
1'. Continuous bed and bank Absent #
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
3
{ 2. Sinuosity 0
- X2
3 In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 y
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
?5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 i 2 3
-
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 3
T. Braided channel T 0 _ 1 _ 2 3 _
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0 Natural levees
1
9 i 0 { 1
- !- 1
?
2 J 3
3
?
_
1-
-
10. Headcuts 1 i 3
{ 11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 { 0.5 1 1.5
j 13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence. j
No = 0
i
yes
I
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 10.3 )
14. Groundwater flowMischarge { 0 { 1
15. Witter in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, g_r
Water in channel - d or rowan season I 0 1 ! 2 W --1'

{ 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 ? L) 1 1.5 i
j 18. Organic debris fines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 I ? :5
( 19. Hydric soils (redo)mnorphic features) present? I No = 0 Yes 5
r Me%lrww fSrrhtr%tnl _ a•5
. Fibmus roots in channel I 2 1
210. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves _ 0 2 3
24. Fish i

25. Amphibians 0 0.5

0.5 1 1.5
t
^- t
'
0
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) t
0.5 T 1 j _ 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1
-_- 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriaMungus. 0 I 1 1.5
29 ° Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 5AV = z.u; Utner = u
E Roma 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Rom 29 focuses on the presence of squatlc or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

n

C

1

F1

FI
L

Appendix 7, Reference Sites Cross Sections
1

n
IJ

J
n

1

Z
O
U
a
G
to
L
Q
t
V
c6
4)
w
N
Y
N
L
U
d
C
a
d
J
LL M 00 N r O
T r r O O V
J
J p
L
Y ? 0.0 (D r M U)
Q 0 LL C; T o 0 0
m ?
V
ay w
= a 01 r ti (D ct O co
LALI o?cD
U)
J
a
O
H
Y Y
0) 0)
m 0)
U U m
-, c c E
z as m
(T OD
N J J fn 0
O O r O
_N 00
J 0) F- ? O ~ + if 75
0
0]ZJ-1 O?Od
a
!1 in en
W
O
z
z
O
H
W
J
W
z
O
H
H
O DO T (?
? (p r O
? ? a a
m m ? m
m
U)

i co
0
co
Ln
I
I
1
co

40

C +
+
m 3
w

J c C

co 0 W
? ?
T
{

?
N
W
N
O

U
9
i
3
LO
LO
0
S
0 =
LL C7
J OD
J T J
D I I
LL J co LL
y of
0 Q o o o Q
LO q- M N r O 0) OD
r r T r r r O O
r r r r r T r r
(}aa}) uoljenal3
m
O
O V- vco Ot0m0r`,q r- Owwr- 0
O )` W O r O V N U) )` N r- r- ct r-T
1-? 6 Nom- O O 06 O O O 666 r 4rl?
r r ?- r T 0000000 ---
M T T T T T T T T T T T T T T r
N M M O O N It LO 0 W T M tt O
co LO (0 (0 1- P- r- rl- r- r- r- w w w w
t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
cd
4+ c
N m
? f
O
J -°
c
0
ti IU
O 1
V
d
N
N
N
O
L
U
O
0
r
LO
O
r
LO
O
co
lq?r
y LL M It In N 0 N O r" N O r
? X 0 0 O r O r 0 0 0 O In
J ?
J p
D N
LL 0 `,, =
drMCOI,-Ww LnNr
Z .= O tL O O 0 0 0 O O O O O
m
_ d r M O Cp 00 UP OR N I'- It r
„?M-n-oroooor
J
0
F-
Y Y
O) O)
N N
U U a??i
-? c(DE
z as
is 2 . 3
N J J w c)
O O r O
>> Lo N zr 00 N
J O) F- F- O t: +' w
3 •..
tn
U m? L C ?
N W
J
O LL
z U
z
O
F W M
aW?
W LL N
J
W
z
FW°O
U. O
o
rn O
d
a?
V
C
t6
N
O
co
LO
ti
r r CO In
? ? O O
? ? a a
Y Y x c
in mM co
T
a3: L
M N r O O 00 ti
r r ?- r o o O
r r r r r r r
(1001) UOIIBA013
-J
U-
=

J r J

LL
LL J co LL

0Q
0
0
D
Ill Q
O O O (p In O tt7 r N In O Ln Ln r Lf) lf) N ll) 4A r
G toG C! NOfp V OOaD aO wm v- LOM
O 0 It V' N O O m 00 O w r- 1- I- h ti O w m V
(?I ------ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o o o o r
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
O W r M N O N d' (p O O m T m 0 0 ti m w
r N LOtp Il-I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O m m o O O
+ t + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
0000000000000000000-
O
CD
c
O
U
N
L
E
f0
N
L
C
O
a
N
L_
C
C
Y
O
O
N
2
rn
cD
Cb
x
w
O
O
O
.r-
CL
14
N
T
?Cdj C
N m
O
J c
? o
co 0
v
N
N
N
N
L
U
l6 ?'
mOLo Or`m
L- O N O 6
N a (n
J E
J O
_
d =
Y? M0 to NN?tn
z V tV LL O r p
QM j
W i
? .C
? r+
_ G1 ifl t0 M I-- M V'
? LL. r ?-- r- r r h
CO
J
i
0
F-
Y Y
N tU
N N
UUa
Z d a
L (L) 3
00
N JJ tn0
O O ` N -:r
NF F-oti + O
m z 0 D
3 c
U) a?
m
m n
J L N V 0 D
a m m .. ?? - =
1A d N O
c6 r-: -O
CE-0 -a
m m m
N
< s 5

_
LL
w
J
cli
J
J r J 0

J
J O
it

H JY -i? ?Y a?
z 0 Q 0 0 a 0
F- co F- F- m F-
z
00 In N O 00 O 1.() (D I? O M tP
(D O l!') `d' N O? O O N M N N 1?
Q W t` 1-- O? M N M m M 4 6 1` O
? LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J
W
z
Fw00M V V V V V MLOLOMLOtf
aLWL OOOOOOOOOOOOO
N
LO
LO
O
LO

d
d
d
? C
(n
Eml
I1)
M
O
Cl)
LO
N
O
N
0) co P- O O O O O O O O
r ? r r ? r r r
(1001) UOIIBA013
O
Cl)
T
L- r)
N
O
N
(()
T
O
T
N
4)
v
u) N
T
N
O
O
T
LO
M
16 u- M ?- N N
L
O O T T p?
J E
J O
of
LL r d Cl) OR O M V
Z •V 0 LL 0 0 0 0 O
7
m R
?+ t r
2a alv0(q Lq(0
U N ?- T T O (O
U)
J
Q
H
O
Y Y
a1 a)
N N
U U a??i
c c ?
z aaa)
Qa (D
N .J J V) co
O O L N (O
-j a) 0 T
MZ:D 1) o(nT
3 .?
U m w c
L ; O
N (O M (9
V (O O O
a E -a -0
m m (a ca
H

W
J N
T
No =
C7
p'
J T J
J J
II
H ? J Y Y?
m z W W z m
L.L
z O m O?Om0
z
? OO a0 M M T M N M M f? ti T M V T N M O T
a W N I T LO It O N M N M N T M T O O M M M
W M M OD to 6 4 g C i M N N N T N M M M M 6
LL T O O O o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o 0
J T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T [?
W
z
O ?- o o T o o co •- v? n ti M o T M ?t u? ? n M T o
? W O M? M M O O D O O T ?- T T T T r N M
Q W + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
LL O O O O O T T -T -T ----
T T
in
O
U')
co
O
co
0
Cl)
LD
N
T
O
N
T
A
C
7
O
U
a
t
a
Nm
I.L
m
m
L
d
Y
d
U
a?
'a
2
0
D
0 0 T .-- 0 0 0
Wac,
J E
D °1 s
LL c9 ..
Y CL 0Nr 000r.M
z.? wLL OOr.=roo
a=?
m L
mow..
=a woao??-or?oc?
:?,°1?oTTro?(D
S ? Ico
J
O
H

,G Y
N N
N N
U U a?'ni
E
z a 'a v
N J J U) O
o ~
J NI-?Or.+
CO Z D o Lo T o?
G
m .. O
MMOr-
v (o T o
C ? -a a
mm? co
m
Q ? L
ti
07
++ c
m
Cl)
m
C1 q?
c T
0
J -°
c
0
'? CIS
O 1
cn
0
L
U
LD
r
d
d
O a?
T ?
T
N
a+
N_
Lo
0
T
0
0
T
to
O
0
(O to Ct co N T O
O O O O O O O
r r T T T
(1081) U01jeAa13
H
Lo _
W o C?
J T J
J ?? J
IW- J Y? ?af Y4! w
m Z W W Z m LL
z O m O O M O
Z
? rn ao cO v v (O v N n ch r- v r- r. rn o T
H W tt r` N w W to O m 0 O . O M O w 0?
W LL ?2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
J
W
Z
OO WN 0 NM r,O_OT_N2 L000N(O'It
W 0 0 '-- N N C7
a W + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
L LL. O O O O T T r T ?"T l"' r' T T T T T
O
O
LO
ti
0
ti
? LL N N M ?? O M
L1
0 0 0 0 O O ?
47 Q N
J E
J O
v `+ W N IT LO IT CO
Q 3 t7 0 0 0 0 6 O O
m R
NNLO(0CO It
LL c- O O O .- O.4
Cn
J
Q
O
Y Y
4) 4)

U U N
c c E
Z a

w
N J J
O
O O O
LO N
LO
m z D:D O LO N
3 '? a
U)
4)
Q] U) t=
M (n M LO O LO O LO
?- V O O O O of rn 06
O O m am
LL Li (1001) UOIIBA013
X C: CU cu
mm
4)
5 ?
m
F-
F- _
LL Ur
O
J N
OD Q'
J O J
II

w J
LL
U)
J > ?
LL
z O O Q O O Q
a- F- m F- F- F- co
z
F? M ? CO ?-O O lO O O LO N OJ du O? ? (0 r LO O
aW (OO W V m N m 0m-o0, gmw(OM
? W OOOOQ?OOO060660660666660
J
W
z
OF-ONOOIS1?oa0?-?NMMMU7u7NU'I W
H W O ?- M M V (O ? lO (O (0 (O (fl t0 (O CO (O f?- O ?
a LL o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F-
Cl)
F.
N
? c
N m
C ?
O a
J ?
o
Cl) (D
O
v
Cl)
N
O
L
V
LO
(0
d
O ?
(0 V
C
r.+
N
L
LO
O
LO
LO
,It
O
O
rn
0
(D
tt7
LO
0
U)
C
7
O
U
A
C
m
L
m
Q
s
m
m
d
SD
L
4-
d
w
d
i
U
d
'a
J
O
F-
D
t6 r
r tp LL M 0 O V ti w m N O w
L B O O O O O O O O O M
N a N
J p
d
t
Y0
NNtDOOrnrnrnti V O
CL
z.?OLL000OOOOOo
a=
m L
a?
_ lU t- O O 1-- h LO LO M N
5 ?- O t7 0 0 0 0 0
I
C0
J
O
Y Y
N N
N N
00 c E
Z d d ro
QLL ? ? ?
N J J ins O
>} .2 .2 - N co
J N F- f- ? ? ?
MZZ?oLO N
to
U CD (n
c
.C
II N N m .. '0
00 N 0) to
vi to O O
mm(a cc
Q
Cl)
co
?
N
r c
N m
C
0 a
i o
N
O
d
N
N
W
0
U
F-
=
LL
w L
J 0 Q'
J (
0) J
J J
tf)
V
d
d
0 d
V• _
t?
w
N
M
In
M
0
C]
LO
N
O
N
O LO O LO O ?n o
aai 06 rn rn rn rn rn
(1001) UOIIBA013

0) 11
W LL LL w

z
1 mz
0m w
o w
o zm
m
LL
0 LL
z
F trnjOMMN00?rnO Mtt) V tnrnNOrnOO
W M to r O tD V V LO I? N Cl O ?-
aj Worn oo r? 1? O cD co O m co m t? r? f? w o6 o0 0
W LL r., rn rn rn rn rn rn O rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn ?
J
W
O OtDrntiMM0 N N M M 0Ot0LO0
?WO?NMMMV V V V VvV•V VtOtnl- o
a W++ t t t t+++ t+ t t t+++++
H LL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0
O
00
LO
r-
0
F-
Ln
(O
r
41
O
O V
C
R
r
HJ
w
LO
LO
O
LO
?0 r
LL NNM? V O
0 0 0 0 0 0
4)En
J E
J p
U' r
4)N?Y? V M?
z.V 470000000
Q 3
m e`II
a
>, t Z,
_M 0C4LO (OCO t7?
LL 0 0 0 o
Y Y
(D (D
U U a)
c c 'E
z a a ?,
cr CO
N J J U) O
O Lr) J a) F- H 9 } O
mzZ) 0LO Na
3 ? a
a?
U m ? L ? N
m
0
v
U)
J
Q
f-
O
- LO M
I V O O
CO F-
? ? a a
m m Cc cu
a?
m
m
O
f-
f-

LL
O Ur
W
6
J O
J
O M O In
C; m M C6
(1001) UOl;en913
II
F- J J Y J Ir Y
z O OQ O ? O Q
IL ?- m F F- m
z
? M ?- 00 l!) O LO O O In N O O O Lf) ? O
Q W (0 O O ItP 0) N CO - (O M r 0 0 - It M (O (4 M
? W OOOCD 0 O(AOOO06006600666660
W LL r , M M 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O
J
W
z
O F' O N O O) LO ? O Op r r N M M M LO LO N Ln O
? W O ? M M ?t LO LO LO (D (O UJ (O (p (O (p (D ? p? ?
Q LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
H
U)
Lo
? O
O
rn
o
a
a) I ;
?O 7{,:
+
M
O
°
' Yt3 ,
d
C
U
L
w dl W In M IT r-
d ?? O O O O O r
' ? d Q N
J
Y
-J 0
d ? ? t
LL C r+ +.
?' YO NN(f)(DtDN
Q O O O O O O
73
m
= L
'a a
at..
N =
- ? NOMUgrl(nO
LL N000-(n
._ 3
' J
O J
r- O (D M
- (C1 O O
C a a
m m a m
m
Q?

Cl)

r r
?pY? • +

' m

J ?
-
r °
c o

I
4 v!
vw
Y,
O

U
O
LO
O
LO
LO
d'
O
V'
Lr) d
d
M C
O
M
LO
N
O
N

H Fa- ?I O
I I o ?n O Un O M
(D w m Lo q:
O 0 O a) O (D O
_ (4001) UOIIBA013
J ? LL'

-? O J
J ?? J
LL J U LL
Y J ?: Y J
z m00 0m O
p
Z
O
(D N? tb M O N M (D ? (D M O ti tb ? .-- M M E
Q W O ti N O (D r r O (D OD m N I, v (D m to O
W w( D(DMLO LO LO (nMLO (n0(D(D0m cD(Dr`O
W LL rn O O O O M (D 0 M M M 0 0 m M 0 m m 0
J
W
Z
O O N M O ? N N M ?}' (n f? DD O N M t!') 00 M??
F. W O r N N M M M M M M M M ?f ? [Y ? tt (C) (Q h
W + + + + t + t + t t t t + t + + t + + +
;-:1!E00000000000000000000
co

5
1

L

Appendix 8. Reference Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
1
1

I I

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s) . Sheats, K Montieth, J. Hartsell
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es o
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes ®o
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: April 2, 2008
County: Alle han
State: North Carolina

Community IE wetland
Transect ID: w2-1
Plot ID:

VF,GVTATION
Dommant ant Species tratum Indic ator Dominant Plant oecies tratum Indic
a r
1. Sctrpus cypennus herb obl 9. Ludwigia alternifolia herb obl
2. Cornus amomum subcanopy acw+ 10.
3. Juncus a us herb facw+ 11.
4. Carex herb 12.
5. Anus serrulata subcanopy facw+ 13.
6. Rosa multiJlora vine up/ 14.
7. Pinus strobus canopy face 15.
8. Vernonia gigantea herb ac+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-; 22%
Remarks:
IIVnR011'n ;'V
_Recor a Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
x Water Marks
z Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
z Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows wetland hydrology

r

C
0
r]

0

1

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 10YR 412 loam
2-4 10YR 412 7.5YR 416 few & prominent loam
4-5 2.5Y 312 IOYR 416 few & prominent sandy loam
5-6 10YR 413 10YR 416 few & prominent sandy loam
6-10 2.5YR 412 10YR 416 common & prominent sandy loam
10-12+ 10YR 311 10YR 316 common & distinct sandy clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Istook Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
s Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Sods List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
a Gleyed or Low-Chroma Color., Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The soil shows hydric indicators
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks The area is a wetland
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Glade Creek
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s) C. Sheats, K Montieth, J. Hartsell
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es o
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes o
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: April 2, 2008
County: Alle han
State: Norte Carolina

Community IL upland
Transect ID: wetland 1, 7, 3
Plot ID:
VF,f F.TATTON
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Decies M_tum Indic
1. Pinus strobus canopy face 9.
2. Rosa mu ti/lora vine upl 10.
3. Juncus a isus herb facw+ 11.
4. Solidago sp. herb 12.
5. Fescue sp. herb 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC ; 20%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available Wetland Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The area shows no hydrology
1
1
1
1
1

son's
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12+ JOYR 313 loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Istook Concretions
_Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colon Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks The soil shows no hydric indicators
WL'I'LAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes o
Remarks The area is a not a wetland
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No I
F

L
7

1

C?

J

1
1
1

1

Appendix 9. Hydrologic Gauge Data Summary, Groundwater and Rainfall Information 1

1
1

1
7

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(ui) uiell
co r- CO LO M N ?- O
O
O

r
V
m
U
00
o
II N ?Ii
O
O I
II N
O
o I I
o (D
m ICI ?
co co
0
rn cn
v
N ()
I ?
41
w
O
O O O O O
CY)
(ui) Iana-1
O
LO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
CD
V
rL,
U
(ui) uieH
co 1l- CD LO ? M N O
co
O
r
O
00
00
I
- N I
N
~
? I
I
co

N

CO
00
O
ti
N
LO
O' N

00 m
O
? to

O I O
s
?
? CI O

co
O

O N M O `p
(ui) IGAGI JOIBM
1
1
(ui) UIBN
00 I- (D to d' M N O
O I -
O
O
V
L
41.1
M
m
a
J9
L
V
t0
m
u
co
O
N I?
? II
00
N_
II O
I
00
O
N
O
00 N U
O N
m
O ' to ' 7
'? •? ill, (/?
N
O
O
O
O 0O N M O 0
(ui) IGAGI J048M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
W'
L
V
.L?
u
(ui) uiejj
00 1` (D LO IT M N O
O
O
? i

co _O
U
N
m ,

00 a)
N r C p
CV _

i
II
DO t

I?
N
(0
l

co
i i
O

N

O
O

i
i

O

O O O O O
N M
?-
(sayOui) JOAGI J04BM
t
1

I
F?

I Appendix 10. Restoration Site Soil Boring Location Map and Log

C

,94' t ?w?rt ? .-gym
S
Z

A
?n

Fox Ridge Rd
?$ :t
,
* `ate n..i.
w
•1r4F
r ?' r? '#. spa, .. a ate, y ".- w #t
INIC
r
Parcel Boundary CaF: Chandler silt loam, 10 to 25% slopes
Roads CeE: Chester loam. 10 to 25% h
slopes
Stream Cx: Codorus complex (Arkaqua)?
Detailed Soil Borings Su: Suncook loamy sand (Biltmore)?
G;? Supplemental Soil Borings WaC: Watuga loam, 6 to 10% slopes
0 200 400 Feet - W2E: Watuga loam, 10 to 25% slopes
;? WaF: Watuga loam, 25 to 45% slopes
`• The Glade Creek Dal'.? Augwu i 2008 Appendix
Catena Stream Restoration Site
Group Soils and Soil Borings A%sl twit 10
Alleghany County, North Carolina Job No.
3149
Glade Creek- Profile 1
A 0-4 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3) sandy loam.
Bg 4-20 inches; very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) sandy loam with few faint dark
yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) concentrations.
Ab 2040+ inches; black (IOYR 2/1) loam with few faint strong brown (7.5YR 4/6)
concentrations.
Glade Creek- Profile 2
A 0-5 inches; dark brown (IOYR 3/3) sandy loam.
Bwl 5-12 inches; dark brown (1 OYR 3/3) sandy loam.
Bw2 12-18 inches; dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) sandy clay loam with few faint
strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) and common prominent (5YR 4/6) concentrations.
Ab 1848+ inches; very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam.
Glade Creek- Profile 3
A 0-6 inches; very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam with common distinct
dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/6) concentrations.
Bwl 6-18 inches; brown (lOYR 4/3) sandy loam with common distinct dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/6) concentrations.
Ab 1848+ inches; black (IOYR 2/1) silt loam with common distinct dark yellowish
brown (IOYR 4/6) concentrations.
1

F

p
Appendix 11. Boundary Survey and Conservation Easement Dedication Ma
1

1

¢. W Y
Ion ?
14
Rail z
as I k ?1 it
sy q
F
X
e57®8j yy 9 s
W I?Gc? R0.???
M N h Cl Cpl R p ?f 15 O
o r C7 0.i ?A V cM.i lu F
612
N- HEIR, 11
`045 ?U

rf _
o?wo?
eV
•u°ia?TCJ
W ??Ny

A$??? ?
Sy9
af
a ?• ?

Tc5 o
s
.P;,
a M p O
E
(Sd`J) 5881 ayN SIAM/

rN,
\ '97?

a
a <J
\
gm \\
N
° 2s, 1

tnnj ???

0

FcJ I?
i ?
I
I
I
I
I?
ly
I?
i?
I
I
g0

3ONV1SI4'VIOL LYLZZI
?w i

r

\ h to

i r3 y{ !?

gill
D4.40S?
?,
^?
I y I
I ? ? I
`Cl YL'9BL 3
SL .

0
?kkCr
3 as
# a

t

R
cc
Y 6 u

?
Y 6
q C
p ? v
W
j
{ K
z
8
?
H
p
in ti

€
y ?g
O
qq
_s
1;
Em ??
fled

BZl ? e. I «b._
-^J
S ax$ qw
HIM
! 4?
N
N .~i• w ? ? 1? li ? ? N
. G
* ?
?
5

?j
. ?
? ~p
N b
w P
w `?
.O W
. ? Il3
N p?p
1+1 ?
? wnl
N ?
rv F
. hi
OD
8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 $
? a g > 4 1 0 1 * * 1
O tl 0 5 ? 24 C ? tl O G v ? ? ?
?NJ o1 1
Wf
ti +999 ? w ?
a
Q
8
S
.oY.rpN - ,.. ,L _ V
66,
!yy c w W
p P ? ~ ? 3 ? Y`f ?? W OJ
I ?4 // 2e ?U ?y qq? ?? ?w po tk?? 2
r h O O v1 V7
WW 2
eel &
% ??i (LC \\^s
I mtl
`? / Ys?gC Y? nisppM nrsg7v ) \
?.-_ all ?f ?p2C!)C9 1
51 ! l .. 9 gi ' A7Np 3Nn ,y? / z z u tl 11
IV
z
¢?z
W
W
0
zra
?Qw
o°z o
p:F_-
z m Q
Q >
3: Of
In W W
U) z cn
z z
E, W 0
Q
W
m

M W
"?F W
6, W
? W
N W
N W W
'Nf W
N W
N W
M) W
o W
?
? n g
N

f7
?f

m
P

m
V

m
E N
N
f

Y
Y
Y

W

T
N
W

'?'
;?

V.

Y
o

N
o N

r l
lf

N t--

w
N

n
-

N Z

IA
N ,

Vi
P1

?

? N

<.,

M

g

a

o

?

?

p

p

N

1?

Y
Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 N 0 0 2 9
H Z N ?
Z 2 2 2 0 . N h ??ppp
Z Wy
N' +
N ?
N p?
N Y
l7 2 2
Z f7 N_ f7 n 4 (p N T m n N Y Z; n (m7 W ° Y° .y N N O N Y ll7 ? o ? n
J N in 0?f lU N ? N N 6 u i N O N p T G ?O n Y a m W o d 10 .N.

W
Z N (7 0 V) N f? W

J P Y lf/ ?p f?

J ° 32 P

J o

N , p
j "
J P 9 7 1 7 - J
m ? t
R
N
?B-
cc
0 E

W ? a
?a?Oz
1
W
01,

C
n

1
1
1
1
Appendix 12. Categorical Exclusion Approved Check List
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with anv Sunnortinn flACUmentafinnl
1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF THE CAROLINAS, INC.
121 E. First Street, Clayton, NC 27520
{ a as, [phone] fax [phone]
LJ
November 11, 2008
Mr. Peter Sandbeck
' North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
4617 mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617

RE: Archaeological Survey of the Glade Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Area, Alleghany
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Sandbeck:
Please find enclosed two copies of the draft report entitled Archaeological Survey of the
Glade Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Area Alleghany County, North Carolina for your
review. This investigation was undertaken in compliance with cultural resource regulations for
Robert Goldstein and Associates, Inc. Thee isolated finds were recorded during this survey. None
of these resources are considered to be significant.
Please don't hesitate to call me at [phone] should you have any questions about this
investigation or require additional report copies.
lY,
ZReid
President
Enclosures
cc: Robert Goldstein, Robert Goldstein and Associates, Inc. (w/l report copy)
Harry Tsomides, NCEEP (w(1 report copy} %
A

LF

1

1

n

J

Appendix 13. Historical Photos

The Glade Creek
Catena Stream Restoration Site
Group Historic Aerial Photography
Alleghany County, North Carolina
9r4 Ae,ml Photoquxihy
Date Fi
July 2008 gure
s.:tlt?
400 Fe.t
4a
Job No.
3149
ERTR- Glade Creek Site, Alleghany County
The Catena Group
19

i4
011

The Glade Creek Dille July 2008 Figure
Catena Stream Restoration Site
Group Historic Aerial Photography 460 feet 4b
Alleghany County. North Carolina Job No 314;
'17G A?'ra1 FhpEog raohY
-1 1 ERTR- Glade Creek Site, Alleghany County The Catena Group
20
The Glade Creek J??iy 2008 Figure
Catena Stream Restoration Site
Group Historic Aerial Photography a =x 4W Feet
Alleghany County. North Carolina Job No. J14 4c
ERTR- Glade Creek Site, Alleghany County The Catena Group
21
r
• • F -J ..i?u ?AII
Owe"
04,
air 4, 111f
X?" 4
651
. `"

fn .
JW"
.AV,J a

Glade Creek a, to
The July 2008 Figure
Catena Stream Restoration Site
Group Historic Aerial Photography 0 <05 41,0 Feet
Alleghany County, North Carolina Joe No. 4d
2149 1998 C ao, IR 7rhopFc>t q,,jph
ERTR- Glade Creek Site, Alleghany County
The Catena Group
22