20051051 Ver 1_Complete File_20050610

WSRO 401 WQC Authorizations and Update
Subject: WSRO 401 WQC Authorizations and Update
From: Daryl Lamb <Daryl.Lamb @ncmail.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:28:11 -0400
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>, Laurie J Dennison <[e-mail]>
Ian and Laurie:
The following 401 authorizations have been issued by WSRO:
DWQ# 20050931: Bradford Downs, Randolph County, effective 07/08/05;
DWQ# 20051045: Northeast Park Crossing, Guilford County, effective 07/11/05;
DWQ# 20051048: Jacob May Shoreline Stabilization, Davidson County, effective 07/08/05.
Inspection reports for the above applications have been entered into BIMS.
The following stream restoration proposal (NW 27) is deemed authorized under WQC# 3495 conditions
of certification : DWQ# 20051051, Ambrose Creek Stream Restoration, Surry County. No further
action is required.
The following individual certification application has been reviewed by WSRO: 20050578: Pennybyrn
@ Mayfield. Onsite determinations have been made of stream origin (for application of the Randleman
Buffer Rules) and the intermittent/perennial transition point (for determining compensatory mitigation
requirements). This proposed project will require both a major variance from the Randleman Buffer
Rules and compensatory mitigation for impacts in excess of 150 linear feet to a perennial stream.
Finally, I will be out of the office from 07/12/05 until 08/01/05. I'll be in touch when I return.
Best regards,
Daryl Lamb
Daryl Lamb
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone] ext 293
FAX: [phone]
Daryl Lamb <Daryl.Lamb(a)NCnlail.net>
WSRO
NC DENR
050931.doc Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
I of 2 7/12/2005 1:41 PM
Triage Check List
Date: 6/14/05 Project Name: Ambrose Creek Stream Restoration
DWQ#: 05-1051
County: Surry
Daryl Lamb, Winston-Salem Regional Office
L
To:
60-day processing time: 6/10/05 8/8/05
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern

Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
NATU R A L
E N G 1 N
June 6, 2005
Mr. Ian McMillan
Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
SYSTEMS
E E R I N G
?? ? I++ ? j 1y f
.
05,10-1
RE: Ambrose Creek Stream Restoration Project, Surry County, North Carolina
NSE Project: SUR-0401
Dear Mr. McMillan:
Enclosed is the detailed restoration plan for the proposed voluntary Ambrose Creek Stream
Restoration Project. Please ensure that these copies are routed to the appropriate staff. Please
ensure that Mr. Daryl Lamb receives the copy with a letter addressed to him.
Thank you, and please contact me if you have any questions regarding this correspondence (919)
878-5444.
Sincerely,
NATURAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
I Ole 9141
James M. Halley, PE D a??
Principal D
Attachments: Ambrose Creek Stream Restoration Plan JUN 1 0 2005
Correspondence, Daryl Lamb, NC DWQ, 6-6-05
Correspondence, Jean Manuele, USACE, 6-3-05 YRANDSMO WATER QUALITY
3719 BEN- DRIVE - RALEIGH. NC 276139 - D-cE (919) 8713.5444 - FAX [phone]

051051,
i wt t2preparedfor:
'-..i1 an.,..
wvation w
Surry Soil and Water Conservation District
220 Cooper Street
Dobson, NC 27017
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03030101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................1
2.0 Project Goals and Objectives ...............................................................................2
3.0 Site Description ....................................................................................................2
3.1 General Description .................................................................................................. . 2
3.2 Surface Waters .......................................................................................................... . 2
4.0 General Watershed Description ...........................................................................3
5.0 Existing Stream Conditions ..................................................................................4
5.1 Existing Stream Geometry ........................................................................................ . 4
5.1.1 Stream Survey Methodology ............................................................................. . 4
5.1.2 Bankfull Verification ........................................................................................ . 4
5.1.3 Stream Classification ........................................................................................ . 4
5.1.4 Channel Classification ...................................................................................... . 5
5.2 Stream Substrate ....................................................................................................... . 6
5.3 Soils ........................................................................................................................... .6
5.4 Existing Plant Communities ...................................................................................... . 7
5.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................... . 7
6.0 Reference Reaches ...............................................................................................8
6.1 Sal's Branch .............................................................................................................. . 8
6.2 Mill Creek ................................................................................................................. . 8
7.0 Stream Channel Design ........................................................................................9
7.1 Natural Channel Design ............................................................................................ . 9
7.2 Dimension ................................................................................................................ 11
7.3 Pattern ...................................................................................................................... 11
7.4 Bed Form .................................................................................................................. 11
7.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ................................................................................... 12
7.6 Riparian Area ........................................................................................................... 13
7.7 Stream Structures ..................................................................................................... 13
7 .7.1 Boulder Cross-Vane ......................................................................................... 14
7 .7.2 J-Hook Vane .................................................................................................... 14
7 .7.3 Root Wads ........................................................................................................ 14
7 .7.4 Channel Sill ...................................................................................................... 14
7 .7.5 Boulder Step-Pool Structure ............................................................................ 15
8.0 Restoration Design Plan Sheets ........................................................................ 15
9.0 Riparian Planting Plan ........................................................................................ 17
10.0 References ........................................................................................................... 19
D %@
JAN 1 ? 105'
v,Jp;I?K Q PAR ??N
v+? os ?oS?ot?
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
Appendix A - Figures
Appendix B - Rural Regional Curve vs. NSE Reference Reach Data
Appendix C - Ambrose Creek Existing Conditions Data Summary
Appendix D - Pre-Construction Notification Application Form
Appendix F - Photographs
Appendix E -Support Documents

a

ONSE
ii
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
Ambrose Creek Stream Restoration Plan
1.0 Introduction
This stream restoration design has been submitted on behalf of the Surry Soil and Water Conservation
District (SWCD) for the explicit purpose of fulfilling the conditions of the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund Grant, Grant No. 2002A-405. The Ambrose Creek Restoration project will fulfill a portion
of the work proposed to be completed with the grant funds.
On behalf of Surry SWCD, Natural Systems Engineering (NSE) proposes to restore stream dimension,
pattern, and bed profile to approximately 1,250 linear feet of Ambrose Creek, a highly degraded and
poorly functioning perennial stream channel. Flood plain creation via Priority II stream restoration and
stream enhancement will be performed on the entire project reach. Approximately 205 linear feet of
stream will be repaired and enhanced in place, and approximately 750 feet of stream will be fully
restored. This watercourse is referred to as Wood Branch on USGS topographic maps and in North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ) publications, but is known locally as Ambrose Creek.
The watercourse will be referred to as Ambrose Creek for the remainder of this report.
The site has been selected because of the degraded state of this section of stream. Based on site
observations the degraded condition of the stream may be the result of flood plain accretion and past
and present forestry practices. The "South Fork Mitchell River Riparian Corridor Assessment",
produced in 2002 by the NC Stream Restoration Institute, notes that "the poor condition of the banks
and the high sediment load warrant restoration of this reach."
The stream banks are generally denuded, actively eroding, and have a nearly vertical profile.
Vegetative cover is minimal along the embankment. As a result, the banks are eroding, subsequently
slumping, promoting lateral channel migration and asymmetrical meander creation. The majority of
the stream is classified as an "F" type channel with some sections classifying as E and G-type channel
under the Rosgen Stream Classification System. Some sections of channel have limited access to the
flood plain during peak flood flows. Portions of the channel do not have access to the flood plain
during bankfull events that typically occur in stable stream channel during the 1.5 to 2 year return
period storm (Leopold et al. 1992). Portions of the channel are in a highly incised state; therefore,
flood flows are constrained to the channel and the flood plain functions more as a terrace that is not
accessible to high flows above the bankfull elevation. The stream is in a progressive state of channel
evolution referred to as Stage III and Stage IV (Ward and Trimble, 2004). Meanders and a new lower
and functional flood plain located at the bankfull elevation are beginning to take form within the
existing confined channel as a result of active stream bank erosion, and bed degradation. Only during
intense rain storm events does flood water reach the historic flood plain.
This reach of Ambrose Creek presents a viable and feasible restoration project. The project reach is
morphologically unstable, contributes to water quality degradation, and possesses limited aquatic
habitat. Several factors support this proposed restoration project. The current degraded state of the
channel, limited flood plain functionality due to channel incision, existing and future erosion potential,
limited native vegetation along the eroded banks, and amenable landowners make this site a viable and
s feasible restoration project.
Additional information is located in the Appendices of this report. Report figures are located in
Appendix A. A comparison of the North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute's regional curve versus
the project specific regional curve is presented in Appendix B. The existing conditions data collected

Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
for Ambrose Creek is presented in Appendix C and the Pre-Construction Notification Form is located
in Appendix D. Documents related to the project such as grant information and the agent
authorization form from the landowner and are located in Appendix E. Photographs of the project rl
site can be found in Appendix F.
2.0 Project Goals and Objectives
The project goal for this restoration plan is to modify the current dimension, pattern and profile of the
existing stream so it will be stable and self-maintaining. The design has been developed utilizing
Rosgen-based natural channel design principles. Physical restoration and the return of the overall
biological and water quality functionality will be accomplished by fulfilling the following objectives:
1) Design a channel with the appropriate cross-sectional dimension, pattern, and longitudinal
profile utilizing the existing channel condition survey, and collected reference reach data as a
guide.
2) Improve upon and create bed form and aquatic habitat diversity (riffles, runs, pools, and
glides).
3) Integrate, in conjunction with the stream restoration, a nested flood plain (bankfull bench) that
will be accessible at the proposed bankfull channel elevation (Priority 11 restoration).
4) Ensure channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in-channel grade control
structures, root wads, and native vegetation into the proposed restoration design while also
creating a stable and functional aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
5) Establish a native forested riparian plant community within a minimum of 30 feet from the
proposed top of the bankfull channel along with the removal of exotic vegetation during
construction implementation and the elimination of current embankment maintenance
practices.
6) Provide aesthetic and educational opportunities.
3.0 Site Description
3.1 General Description
The project site is located approximately seven miles north of Elkin, Surry County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). The site is specifically located approximately 7.6 miles northwest of the I-77/US 21
interchange. To get to the site from I-77, take US 21 north approximately 5.7 miles to Mountain Park
Road (SR 1307), turn right and proceed approximately 1.5 miles to the intersection of Mountain Park
Road and Pat Nixon Road (SR 1306). The entrance to the site is directly across Mountain Park Road
from the intersection with Pat Nixon Road, and is a white gate and fence. Once through the gate, the
site is approximately 0.5 miles down the dirt road that originates at the gate (Figure 2). The site
includes two parcels of property, both owned by the same party (Figure 3). The project site and its
watershed are depicted against an aerial photograph as shown in Figure 4.
3.2 Surface Waters
The project site is located within the Yadkin River Basin, USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040101 (USGS
1974), subbasin 030702 (NCDENR, 2003), and 14-digit basin 03040101080030. Ambrose Creek (NC
DWQ Stream Index Number 12-62-13-2 (Wood Branch)) joins with the South Fork Mitchell River at
the project terminus. The current State classification of Ambrose Creek is Class C waters (NCDENR,
ONSE
2
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
I'l
2005). Class C waters are protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture (NCDENR, 2004). Based on the most recently published USGS
quadrangle, Ambrose Creek is a third order stream and the drainage area at the terminus of the project
is approximately 2.3 square miles (Figure 4).
4.0 General Watershed Description
The primary land use within the immediate project site is agricultural. The project site is currently
being utilized to produce hay for livestock feed. The site has been degraded by past land management
practices including mechanical land clearing and continual hay production. Utilizing the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 1993 orthophotograpli of the watershed area, it has been estimated that the
land use within the Ambrose Creek watershed consists primarily of forested and agricultural.
Approximately seventy percent (70%) of the watershed is agriculture and thirty percent (30%) is
forested (Figure 4).
The watershed area is located in the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina and is classified
geologically as the Blue Ridge Belt. The eco-region has been classified as the Northern Inner
Piedmont eco-region. The surrounding landscape topography of the watershed is characterized as
predominately strongly sloping to very steep uplands and narrow nearly level flood plains. The site
topography along the flood plain is relatively flat adjacent to the subject stream. Elevations within the
watershed vary from 1,400 feet mean sea level (MSL) at the highest point in the watershed to a low of
approximately 1,100 feet (MSL) at the project terminus (USGS, 1994 and USGS, 1971).
Ambrose Creek originates approximately 2.2 miles to the west of the confluence with the South Fork
Mitchell River, and flows from west to east. It empties directly into the South Fork Mitchell River,
which flows from northwest to southeast.
Vertical fall across the project site from the origin to the terminus is approximately 4 feet resulting in a
valley slope of 0.004 ft/ft based on the 1-foot topographic map developed by NSE. The wide, gently
sloping, well-defined flood plain is a Valley Type VIII as defined in Applied River Morphology
(Rosgen, 1996). The drainage area for the entire project site, which correlates with the confluence of
Ambrose Creek with the South Fork Mitchell River has been estimated to be approximately 2.3 square
miles.
The project site currently exhibits various existing uses. The primary land use within the site is
agricultural. The current agricultural use is the production of fescue hay and includes the
infrastructure required to access, maintain, and service the project area for this purpose.
and immedia
surroundine the
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
criteria utilized to determine stream type include the stream slope, width-to-depth ratio, entrenchment
ratio, sinuosity, and substrate class.
5.1.4 Channel Classification
Based on the completed channel survey and observations made during the site reconnaissance, the
project reach has been functionally and hydrologically modified to maximize available land for the
purpose of accommodating current agricultural uses. Modifications may have included dredging,
channelization, and clearing and grubbing of the native vegetation once present along the channel and
within the flood plain. Stream channelization in this case was probably completed to maximize
productive cropland acreage, promote positive site drainage, and to reduce the historic groundwater
table elevation. As a direct result of the channelization procedure, the dredged and lowered channel
no longer has full access to the historic flood plain at the bankfull elevation. The channel is
considered to be incised resulting in the concentration of flood flows within the confines of the
channel that would otherwise be dispersed onto the flood plain. As a result of the incision, stream
power within the confined channel increases beyond sustainable levels causing destabilization in the
form of bed degradation and bank erosion (Ward and Trimble, 2004; Gordon et al., 1992).
Bank erosion is present along the entire length of the project reach. Perpetuated by incision, the
channel is in the preliminary stages of transition from an "E/F" to a "G" type channel. The degree of
vertical incision increases from upstream to downstream (headcutting) as the bed continues to degrade
further limiting access to the historic flood plain. The lower most segment of the channel classifies as
a G-type channel and is exemplifying Stage III evolution (Ward and Trimble, 2004). Channel reaches
above those sections shared characteristic of both E and F type channels and these sections are in
Stage IV evolution.
Stage III channel evolution consists primarily of channel degradation or erosion of the bed. Stage IV
evolution consists of bed degradation and bank erosion. Bank erosion consists primarily of slumping
caused when the toe of the embankment is eroded to the point where the critical bank height is
exceeded. At this point, the embankment is no longer supported and the entire bank drops vertically
or rotates into the channel. Critical bank height is influenced by soil type, vegetation type, rooting
densities, and rooting depths.
Computing current bank height ratios, which is the maximum bank height divided by the maximum
bankfull depth, can numerically express the extent of channel incision. Utilizing the survey data
gathered in the field, the bank height ratio for the project reach averaged 1.63. Typically, bank height
ratios on reference reach streams are 1.0 and rarely greater than 1.1; therefore, based on this
comparison the project reach is extremely incised. Channel adjustments due to these conditions
include lateral channel migration, bed degradation, and bank erosion.
® Several representative riffle cross-sections were surveyed along the project reach. Existing riffle
bankfull cross-sectional area for the project stream ranges from 37.9 to 42.1 square feet. Bankfull
width ranges from 20.3 to 21.5 feet with mean depths between 1.8 to 2.1 feet. The stream type
transitions from an E to F to a G-type channel as the channel proceeds downstream, with the majority
of the reach lengths emulating an F channel type. The lower-most segments of each channel are G
channels simulating active bed degradation (headcutting) which will continue until strealn equilibrium
is reached. The average dimensions are below and the individual cross-sections are available in
Appendix C.
ONSE
5
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Sorry County, North Carolina • March 2005
Ambrose Creek-Average Riffle Dimensions
Bankfull Width: 21.0 feet
Cross-sectional Area: 40 square feet
Bankfull Mean Depth: 2.0 feet
Maximum Depth: 2.7 feet
Width/Depth Ratio: 11.0
Entrenchment Ratio: 11
Bank Height Ratio: 1.63
Additional existing conditions parameters are available on the morphological table provided in
Section 7.1.
Vertical channel incision has constrained channel discharges resulting in bed scour and bank erosion.
As a result native plants along the embankment and within the active channel are sparse and these
areas are predominately denuded as a result of the vertical profile of the banks. The majority of the
large trees located along the banks are undercut and several have fallen into and across the channel.
The adjacent hayfield is dominated by fescue grass (Festuca sp.), deer tongue (Panicurn
clandestinum), and rushes (Juncus effuses).
5.2 Stream Substrate
Bed material in Ambrose Creek is dominated with coarse sand and gravel. Depending on the specific
location where the individual pebble count was collected, some samples were slightly coarser
compared to the overall substrate class and were composed of coarse to very coarse gravel. The D50
ranged from 17 millimeters to 41 millimeters. Therefore 50% of the bed material sampled consisted
of particles that are classified as very coarse gravel or finer. After evaluation of the collected stream
data, it was observed that coarser pebble counts correlated to channel segments that are undergoing
more active channel degradation (i.e. scour). This observed channel degradation was supported by the
data that showed these sections of stream as having the steepest measured facet slopes.
5.3 Soils
The project site is located in the Northern Inner Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina.
Soils present in the flood plain adjacent to Ambrose Creek are characteristic of those found in alluvial
landforms within this region. The soil type has been identified by USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) as Colvard and Suches from a "Soil Survey Field Sheet" for Surry
County (USDA, 1992). A soil survey has not been compiled and soil names may change.
Colvard and Suches soils are the only soils within the flood plain located immediately adjacent the
subject stream. Formed in alluvial deposits, these soils have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. These
soils are located within flood plains that are nearly level to gently sloping. These areas are subject to
occasional flooding and the seasonal high water table is within a depth of 2.5 to 6.0 feet (USDA,
2005).
Other soils in the project's vicinity include Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, and the Fairview-
Stott Knob complex, which are soil commonly identified on adjacent side slopes and terraces. No
hydric soils were identified by NRCS within the project corridor.
0
ONSE
6
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
5.4 Existing Plant Communities
Throughout most of the project site, Ambrose Creek flows adjacent to a fescue hayfield and through a
bottomland hardwood forest. Thus, the native riparian plant community is restricted to the stream
banks adjacent to the hayfield and continues from the right bank to the top of slope where it transitions
to a white pine forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The width of the riparian area adjacent to the
hayfield and located along the west side of the stream is rarely more than fifteen feet wide. Trees are
sporadic and are limited to river birch (Betula nigra), red maple (Ater rubrum), tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and black willow (Salix nigra).
Shrub and herbaceous layer consisted of privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiora),
blackberry (Rubes spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), tag alder (Alms serrulata), spice
bush (Lindera benzoin), deer-tongue (Panicum clandestiman), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
and goldenrod (Solidago spp.) (Radford et al., 1968). Fescue grass (Festuca sp.) dominates the plant
community immediately adjacent to the left bank of Ambrose Creek.
In patchy spots along and within the banks, smaller individuals of black willow (Salix nigra) and alder
(Alms serrulata) occur sporadically, often within the active channel and on top of depositional
features. To a lesser extent, common wetland herbs observed included Carex spp. and Juncus spp.
within the active channel and lower embankments.
_ 5.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
No occurrence of either federally or state-listed species were identified during the field
reconnaissance. Also based on the NRCS national inventory no occurrences of threaten or endangered
species exists in the vicinity of the project site. The species that are listed as federally threatened or
endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Surry County are listed below (FWS, 2004):
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened
Schweinitz's sunflower Heliantlurs sclnvemltzii Endangered
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Due to the fact that the land use in the project's immediate vicinity experiences extensive and periodic
maintenance associated with hay production and the degraded state of the stream channel, no suitable
habitat for the above listed federal species was observed within or adjacent to the proposed restoration
project.
¦
® The stream restoration is not expected to have any adverse effect on the habitat of any of these listed
species; rather, habitat quality will likely be enhanced as a result of the project.
During the field reconnaissance, characteristic piedmont fauna were observed onsite. Tracks of or
physical sighting of the following species were observed: whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), American crow (Carduelis tristis), Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and
red tail hawk (Buteo jamaicencis) (Webster et al., 1985; Potter et al., 1980).

I
ONSE
7
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101 a
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
0
6.0 Reference Reaches
The reference reaches described below were utilized to provide guidance in the design process of the
proposed stream restoration plan. Data collected was not used as an exact template but as a vital part
of the design process. These channels were chosen because of the similarities that are evident when
compared to the project streams. For instance, all of the reference reaches and the project streams are
located in a wide flat alluvial valley (Valley Type VIII), classify as E-type channels, gravel dominated
channel substrate, and have low gradient channel slopes (<0.8%). All of the data collected relative to
each reference reach plotted within the 95% confidence interval (Appendix B) when compared to the
North Carolina Regional Curve (SRI, 2000).
6.1 Sal's Branch
Sal's Branch is located approximately 1.5 miles south east of the Highway 70/540 interchange in
Umstead State Park, Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. Based on the Southeast Durham 7.5-
minute topographic quadrangle Sal's Branch is a first order stream and the reference survey was
collected at a point at which the drainage area was calculated to be approximately 0.35 square miles.
The headwaters of the stream originate at Highway 70, which is predominately characterized as
commercial. As the creek flows onto Park property the watershed becomes forested with the
exception of an access road and buildings utilized to service the needs of the park and its patrons.
Stream data was collected in July of 2001. Information gathered included pattern and longitudinal
profile, cross-sectional area, slope, and pebble count data. Based on the data collected, Sal's Branch
was determined to be an E4 channel type when utilizing the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
The channel was determined to have a bankfull cross-sectional area of 13.8 square feet, a width of
10.2 feet, and a mean depth of 1.3 feet. The channel is located in a Valley Type VIII, which is
characterized as a wide alluvial valley with a low slope gradient.
6.2 Mill Creek
Mill Creek is located approximately four miles west of the I-77 and SR 1001 interchange, 2,000 feet
north of Charity Hill Church at the end of SR 1321, and 7 miles west of Dobson, Surry County, North
Carolina. Based on the Bottom and Roaring Gap 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles, Mill Creek is a
third order stream with a total drainage area of approximately 4.5 square miles at the point that the
survey was conducted. The stream is located in an open field utilized for hay production, immediately
upstream the land use adjacent to the creek is active pasture. As the valley gradient increases from the
point of the survey to the headwaters, the watershed becomes increasingly forested, with farm uses
diminishing. The headwaters are predominately forested with single family homes located
sporadically along the State maintained roads. Lake Laurel also exists within the upper drainage area
with a watershed of approximately two square miles. Mill Creek is located in a Valley Type VIII.
Stream data was collected in March of 2002. Over 800 linear feet of channel was longitudinally
surveyed, five cross-sections were measured, and pebble count data was collected. The channel had
an average bankfull cross-sectional area of 27.5 square feet, width of 18.4 feet, and a mean depth of
1.5. Based on the data collected, Mill Creek was classified as an E4 channel.
After the gathered field data was plotted for Mill Creek it was compared to the North Carolina
Regional Curve. As a result of the comparison, Mill Creek plotted at or just below the 95%
ONSE
8
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005

a
n
u
L1,
L
H,
h-
I
confidence interval. Re-evaluating the data and the watershed conditions we have determined that
several key watershed factors may be affecting the dimension of the stream channel. One of the most
predominate features located within the watershed was Lake Laurel which impounds and controls
drainage from approximately two square miles. It is believed that the dam and outlet structure may
have a significant effect on the volume, discharge rate, and timing of flows equivalent to a bankfull
event, thereby reducing the discharge rate or altering the timing of the peak flow through the reference
reach during the bankfull event (channel forming flow). As a result of the delay, reduction, or
elimination of the bankfull storm flow from the portion of the watershed controlled by Lake Laurel,
Mill Creek has apparently adjusted its cross-sectional dimension. The active drainage area of Mill
Creek after eliminating the Lake Laurel drainage area is approximately 2.7 square miles. When the
collected field data is compared to the presumed active drainage area, the measured cross-sectional
area plotted just below the regression line on the regional curve.
Other factors that may influence the dimension of Mill Creek include infiltration of flows into the
surrounding landscape, other recently constructed ponds within the watershed, and drainage diversion
potentially associated with road projects or farming activities.
7.0 Stream Channel Design
7.1 Natural Channel Design
The restoration design for Ambrose Creek is based on natural channel design principles and
techniques utilizing reference reach data sets and the existing conditions survey data collected from
the restoration site. Reference data that has been utilized to develop the restoration design for the
stream channel included the North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (SRI 2000), Mill Creek
reference reach data (Jelenevsky et. al., 2002), Sal's Branch reference reach data (Doll and
Jelenevsky, 2001), and to a lesser degree past successful stream restoration designs.
The proposed stream design will restore the existing degraded channel to a naturally meandering,
ecologically functional E/C type stream channel. A bankfull bench or nested flood plain will also be
constructed adjacent to Ambrose Creek. The resulting restored stream will be approximately 1,250
linear feet (centerline distance) with an estimated thalweg length of approximately 1,300 linear feet.
This restoration is considered to be a Priority II type of stream restoration because a bankfull bench
(nested flood plain) will be constructed adjacent to the proposed channel alignment at a lower
elevation relative to the existing flood plain. Where possible the invert of Ambrose creek has been
slightly elevated and therefore will reduce the amount and the depth that the flood plain that will need
to be excavated. This reduces disturbance to the native soil profile and creates a more environmentally
sensitive construction process because the amount of disturbance is somewhat reduced. The existing
and proposed morphological characteristics are depicted in Table 1 on the following page.
The restoration design will result in a riffle-pool channel profile that will be reinforced utilizing in-
stream structures such as boulder cross-vanes, J-hook vanes, double drop cross vanes, step-pool
structures, and root wads. The new channel, flood plain and any disturbed areas within the
conservation casement will subsequently be vegetated with transplants, bare-root seedlings, live stakes
and seeded with temporary and permanent ground cover. Erosion control matting,
temporary/permanent seeding, and live stakes will be applied to the channel embankment immediately
following completion of each channel segment providing surface protection of the banks.
ONSE
9
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Sorry County, North Carolina • March 2005
Table 1- Ambrose Creek Morphology

Variables Sal's
Branch Mill Creek Ambrose
Creek Ambrose
Creek
Survey Crew Doll/
Jelenevsky Jelenevsky
et al. NSE NSE
Survey Date 06/01 03/02 01/05 02/05
Parameter Reference Reference Existing Design
Stream Type E E4 E4/G-F4 E41C4
Drainage Area (mi) 0.35 2.60 2.30 2.30
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 10.2 18.4 21.0 20.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.8
Width/Depth Ratio 7.6 12.0 11.0 11.1
Max Riffle Depth (Dmax) 1.9 2.9 2.7 2.5
Max Riffle Depth Ratio (Dmax/Dbkf) 1.5 1.9 1.4 1.3
Bankfull Cross-Section Area (Abkf) 13.8 27.5 40.0 36.0
Bankfull mean velocity (Vbkf) 3.8 4.9 4.6 4.1
Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) 51.6 134.0 183.2 148.0
Width of Flood Prone Area (Wfpa) 100 200 225 225
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf) 9.8 10.9 10.9 10.9
Min Meander Length (Lm) 35 40 142 70
Max Meander Length (Lm) 43 76 158 160
Min Meander Length Ratio (Lm/Wbkf) 2 2.2 6.8 3.5
Max Meander Length Ratio (Lm/Wbkf) 4.2 4.1 7.5 8.0
Min Radius of Curvature (Rc) 11 30 26 30
Max Radius of Curvature (R,) 21 44 44 50
Min Radius of Curvature Ratio (Rp/Wbkf) 1 1.6 1.2 1.5
Max Radius of Curvature Ratio (Rr/Wbkf) 2 2.4 2.0 2.5
Min Belt Width (Wb,t) 20 40 100 60
Max Belt Width (Wb,t) 62 76 114 100
Min Meander Width Ratio (Wb,t/Wbkf) 2 2.2 4.8 3.0
Max Meander Width Ratio (Wb,t/Wbkf) 6.1 4.1 5.4 5.0
Sinuosity (stream length/valley length) 2 1.8 1.3 1.4
Valley Slope (Sva,) 0.006 0.014 0.004 0.004
Avg. Stream Slope (Save) 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.004
Min Riffle Slope (Sr;f) 0.016 0.007 0.010 0.008
Max Riffle Slope (Sr;f) 0.036 0.037 0.036 0.010
Min Riffle Slope/Ave Slope (Sr,f/Save) 3 1.0 2.0 1.9
Max Riffle Slope/Ave Slope (Sr;f/Save) 6.9 5.2 7.2 2.5
Min Riffle Length (Lr;f) 3 12.0 16.5 15.0
Max Riffle Length (Lrif) 28 60.0 31.8 30.0
Min Riffle Length/Bankfull Width (Lnf/Wbkf) 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.8
Max Riffle Length/Bankfull Width (Lr;f/Wbkf) 2.7 3.2 1.5 2.0
Pool Slope (Spoo,) 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio (Spool/Save) 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Pool Depth (Dpo,),) 2.8-3.26 4.4 4.2 4
Pool Depth Ratio (Dp,)p,/Dbkf) 2.2-2.5 2.05 2.7 2.3
Pool Area (Apo,),) 24 1.36 1.35 1.3
Pool Area Ratio (Apoo,/Abkf) 1.7 50.5 65.9 55-60
Pool Length (Lp,),),) 21-35 1.8 2.2 1.7
Pool Length Ratio (Lpoo,/Wbkf) 2.1-3.4 21-53 36.0-68 40-75
Pool Width (Wp,)o,) 10.2 1.14-2.8 1.7-3.2 2-3.75
Pool-Pool Spacing (p-p) 51-66 19-30 24.1 24.0
Pool Spacing Ratio (p-p/Wbkf) 5.0-6.5 30-84 77-160 65-120
* excludes step-pool sections
0
a
ONSE
10
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
7.2 Dimension
Based on the survey data, the existing bankfull cross-sectional areas, measured in square feet,
averaged 40. The bankfull width, measured in feet, averaged 21. Bankfull mean depth, measured
in feet, was 2.0.
The proposed design width for Ambrose Creek is 20 feet with an average depth of 1.8 feet. The
channel dimensions were determined utilizing the average measured width of the existing stream,
the North Carolina regional curve, collected reference reach data, existing site constraints and the
required shear stress to move the D84. The designed dimensions classify as an E/C channel type.
As the streams mature and vegetation begins to stabilize the embankments, the channel should
slowly convert to an E-type channel. This assumption is based on previous successful project
monitoring and is primarily caused by the increase in embankment roughness resulting in
deposition on the banks which reduces the originally constructed channel cross-sectional area and
increases embankment slope. The depiction of the typical riffle and pool cross-section profiles
are located on Figure 5, Appendix A.
7.3 Pa ttern
The current pattern of the existing project reach is fairly sinuous, with a measured sinuosity of
approximately 1.4 (stream length divided by valley length). Evidence of accelerated lateral
channel migration and eroding banks indicate that the meander bends are very unstable.
As a result of the proposed channel re-alignment, channel sinuosity will be slightly reduced to
1.3. Meanders have been integrated throughout the length of the project reach to the maximum
extent possible based on existing site constraints and the reference reach data provided. The
integration of meanders into the proposed restoration design reduces overall channel slope by
increasing channel length and decreasing shear stress, while producing a stable and diversified
aquatic habitat. See Section 8 of this report for detailed plan drawings.
7.4 Bed Form
Bed form along the project reach is in extremely unstable condition, primarily due to the incised
and entrenched nature of the channel. The majority of the longitudinal profile resembles a
riffle/run bed with a few deep pools. Bed form is in a degraded condition because of several
culminating factors. Flood flows are concentrated within the incised and constrained channel and
this water is typically laden with excess sediment as a result of bank erosion. Excess sediment
load, and current site constraints have resulted in a channel that is in constant transition in an
attempt to reach equilibrium and create an active flood plain at its bankfull elevation. Therefore,
it is unlikely that the bed form remains consistent. Bed fonn most likely fluctuates after each
storm event depending on storm intensity and duration.
The restoration design incorporates riffles, runs, pools, and glides into the longitudinal profile
providing bed form characteristics exemplified by the reference reaches surveyed. Riffles will be
located along straight segments of the channel, runs connect the riffles to the pools which are
located along the outside meander bends and glides connect the pool to the riffle. Riffles are
designed with a maximum depth typically 1.5 times less than the maximum pool depth. These
bed features may be reinforced with in-stream structures to insure bed stability and to maintain
ONSE
11
Ambrosc Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
bed form. Structures may be omitted or added during construction due to unknown site O
conditions or unconsolidated soils. At times, the designer may not install structures that appear
on the design sheets. This action is reserved for instances where the damage and potential
instability caused by installation of the in-stream structure outweighs the benefit. Structure
placement is typically field adjusted to conform to the constructed stream alignment and profile.
Section 8 of this report contains detailed plan drawings of the proposed stream's longitudinal
profile.
7.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
A naturally stable channel has the ability to transport its sediment load without aggrading or
degrading the channel bed. Sediment load is comprised of suspended load, bed load and wash
load. Suspended load is comprised of sediment that is being transported in suspension by upward
momentum present in the channel. Bed load is comprised of bed material that is transported by
rolling, sliding, or skipping along the channel bed. Wash load is comprised of fine particles that
may remain in suspension indefinitely and have very low rates of settling. At high discharge
rates, a significant portion of the bed load and potentially the sub pavement may become
suspended, especially if the bed material is composed primarily of fine grained material and the
substrate is homogenous throughout such as sand-dominated channel.
The D50 channel substrate class (greater than 50% of the particles) of Ambrose Creek consists of
coarse gravel (16-64 mm). The majority of the riffle bed substrate observed was coarse gravel,
while the pools consisted primarily of sand and to a lesser degree fine gravel.
To determine if the proposed channel has the competence to transport its current sediment load,
shear stress was calculated utilizing the dimensions of the proposed riffle cross-sections of each
designed channel utilizing the proposed bankfull slope. The calculated value was then compared
to the Shield's Curve (ASCE, 1975) to confirm that the designed channel could move the D84
particle of the riffle or bar pebble count, which ranged between 44 and 96 mm. The standard
relationships and resulting calculations are presented in this section. The remaining data is
provided in tabular format.
T = yRS (Wildland Hyrology, 1998)
T = Shear stress (lbs/ftz)
y = Specific gravity of water (62.41bs/ft3)
R = Hydraulic radius (ft)
S = Bankfull channel slope (ft/ft)
The hydraulic radius is calculated by:
R = A/WP (Wildland Hyrology, 1998)
R = Hydraulic radius (ft)
A = Cross-sectional Area (ft)
WP = Wetted perimeter (ft)
0
ONSE
12
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
Where WP = (2 * channel depth (mean)) + width = (2 * 1.8) + 20 = 23.6 ft
R=36 ft2 (A)/23.6 ft (WP) = 1.52 ft
Therefore, shear stress was calculated to be:
z = 62.4lb/ft2 (y) * 1.52 ft (R) * 0.004 ft/ft (S)
T = 0.38 lb/ft2
N
Shear stress was calculated to be 0.38 lb/ft2, and Shield's Curve predicts that the proposed stream
could move the 20 mm particle. Based on Revised Shields Diagram (Wildland Hydrology,
2001), which is the culmination of field collected data in stream channels containing
heterogeneous bed substrate, the channel should be able to move a particle up to 75 mm in size.
Because the transported sediment load consists primarily of coarse sand and fine gravel, the
proposed channel design should have the capacity to transport current sediment loads based on
the completed shear stress calculations and the interpretation of the Revised Shields Curve.
Maximum predicted particle size and calculated critical shear stress values are presented in
tabular format below. Note that bankfull slopes utilized to derive the following results do not
encompass the drop-pool sections of the proposed stream; therefore, the values presented are
conservative as they are based on minimal proposed stream slope.
Stream Critical Shear Stress Max. Particle Size (Revised Shields Curve)
Ambrose Creek 0.38 lbs/ft 75 mm
7.6 Riparian Area
A riparian buffer area will be established immediately adjacent to the restored stream channel.
The riparian zone will include the entire bankfull bench (nested flood plain) and toe slope, which
will tie the surround existing grade with the proposed bankfull bench elevation. Typical width
will be no less than 30 feet on either side of the bankfull elevation of each stream bank. These
areas will be planted with the appropriate native riparian vegetation and will provide channel
stability, flood attenuation and a vegetated buffer that will intercept overland storrnwater.
Species will consist primarily of native trees and small shrubs of the Piedmont. Refer to Section
9.0 Riparian Planting Plan for more details. Vernal pools will be created during construction at
the discretion of the designer. The deepest point of the vernal pools will be approximately two
feet above the base flow elevation of the existing channel.
7.7 Stream Structures
To provide grade control following construction of the channel, boulder cross-vane, double step
cross-vanes, step-pool structures, J-hook structures, channel sill structures, and root wads have
been integrated into the design and will be utilized to reinforce and stabilize the proposed
channels. All structures will be constructed out of natural materials typically consisting of locally
quarried boulders. Existing natural grade control and stable channel sections will be incorporated
into the channel profile. Although, cross-vanes are typically depicted at the riffle/glide interface
and J-hooks are located in the run/pool interface, some of the depicted structures may be omitted,
or shifted during construction due to naturally occurring site attributes (e.g. bedrock, etc.). Also
ONSE
13
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
structures may be added that are not shown on the proposed plan drawings. Typical structure
details, which are based on Rosgen in-stream structure designs (Rosgen, 2001), are provided in
Section 8. n
7.7.1 Boulder Cross-Vane
The boulder cross-vane structure plan and cross-section views are illustrated in Section 8. The
cross-vane is an in-stream grade control structure that concentrates stream energy toward the
center of the channel and away from the near-bank areas reducing shear stress along the banks
and preventing bank erosion. This structure reduces the potential of headcutting and creates a
stable width-to-depth ratio, while also promoting sediment transport capacity. The upstream side
of the structure will be lined with a non-woven fabric and backfilled with excavated channel
material and in some cases appropriately sized quarried stone aggregate due its placement in a
sandy loam substrate material. This modification is required due to the potential for the structures
to "pipe" following installation due to the voids created during the installation of the structure in
fine-grained substrate. Piping may eventually lead to structure failure and potentially
catastrophic stream bed and bank erosion.
The double step cross vane is constructed and functions similarly to a cross vane except the vane
drops down approximately six (6) inches from the head rock elevation or the starting point of the
structure down to the step. This structure is used when there is a significant vertical change in the
valley and the designed channel must compensate without degrading.
7.7.2 J-Hook Vane
The J-Hook vane structure plan and cross-section views are also illustrated in Section 8. This
structure is typically used along outside meander bends where the near-bank shear stress is the
greatest. This structure will be utilized to reduce potential bank erosion by redirecting velocity
gradients toward the center of the channel and away from the near-bank area. This structure also
promotes sediment transport through the pools, maintains pools depths and provides aquatic
habitat. This structure occupies two-thirds of the bankfull channel cross-sectional area and is
constructed similarly to the cross-vane with footer boulders, non-woven fabric, and stone
aggregate as required.
7.7.3 Root Wads
Root wads will be utilized along the outer-most sections of the meander bends as determined
during the construction process. These structures are composed of available native trees with an
appropriately sized root fan typically 4 to 5 foot wide and an 8 to 12-foot long trunk section.
These structures are installed perpendicular to stream flow into the side of the stream bank with
the root fan exposed to the channel while the trunk section anchors the structure in place. If
required, logs or boulders can be installed immediately below the channel invert to serve as a
footer on which the root wad is positioned. The root wad structure serves multiple purposes such
as providing protection of the outer bank from potential erosion, aquatic habitat, aquatic cover,
shade, and a source of detritus.
7.7.4 Channel Sill
The invert sill structure is typically utilized in lieu of the traditional boulder cross-vane due to the
compact dimensions of smaller tributaries. The structure functions primarily as a permanent
ONSE
14
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
grade control feature that prevents channel degradation or headcutting. This structure can be
composed of stone or wood embedded if required in a bed of aggregate and wrapped with non-
woven filter cloth. The structure is typically used at the head of riffle or end of riffle.
7.7.5 Boulder Step-Pool Structure
The boulder step-pool structure essentially consists of several cross-vanes located in close
proximity of one another or stacked together to form one uniformed structure that creates a series
of steps broken up by pools. This structure is used to merge channels together that have large
variations in invert elevation. Each step is limited to six (6) inches or less allowing for the
migration of aquatic life.
8.0 Restoration Design Plan Sheets
(next page)
ONSE
15
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
0
This page intentionally left blank.
0
0
ONSE
16
f:
?I
PI-1,

0
t

AMBROSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY GENERATED FROM DATA COLLECTED
BY NATURAL SYSTEMS ENGINEFLCNG, ON 01-27-04. SHEET 5
2. THE BASE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WAS DRAWN FROM AN
ACTUAL SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER 11MITED APPLICATION
SURVEYING FOR ENGINEERING BY D. S. TURNER, LSI FOR
J. M. HALLEY, PE; ALL ELEVATIONS ARE ASSUMED.
3. EXACT RECORDS FOR THIS DIGITAL FILE CAN BE FOUND ON
FILE WITH NATURAL SYSTEMS ENGINEETNG UNDER JOS NUMBER
SURO401.
4. A NATIONW'DE 27 PERMIT AND A 401 WATER OUAUTY PERMIT
WILL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.
SHEET 4 IV.
AMBROSE CREEK
Il
?1 /
II
lj •
t) I? 65
SHEET3
L.---- f --- l? -----------------
/i
00,
SEE SHEET 2 FOR LINETYPE LEGEND
l/ x
UNPAVED ROAD
.1.. ?,
i• ? ???SITE
AMBROSE CREEK? o
11
1l
1
1
VICINITY MAP Ammmm
Not 10 SCALE
SHEET INDEX:
SHEET 1 - TITLE AND INDEX SHEET
SHEET 2 - LEGEND
SHEET 3 - AMBROSE CREEK
SHEET 4 - AMBROSE CREEK
SHEET 5 - AMBROSE CREEK
SHEET 6 - LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
SHEET S- 1 - STREAM STRUCTURE DETAILS
SHEET S- 2 - STREAM STRUCTURE DETAILS
SHEET S- 3 - STREAM STRUCTURE DETAILS
SHEET P- 1 - PLANTING DETAILS
U1 E
?z
w_
Ul
m
W
In s
0
W N
J
Qz2
U
o
J Z
F
Z ur a
m
O
< m
Q z o
o a
Z w =
V1
? m
W
K
,GAIL
:4`1rSEAL r
29216
DATE o7G7a5
DESIGNED BY: PAI
I DRAWN BY: DSTAVVVR
ICHECKED BY. JMWPAJ
I PROJECT NO.: SUR0401
[FILE. ambrose crk 070305
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
u U
ISHEET
z
0
H
QQ
Q
W O 0
U
w
?
°z
Z
Q w
?
o

FJ- V)

0
?

AMBROSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
DETAIL KEY
DETAIL NUMBER
1
S-1
SHEET T NUMBER
LEGEND
MINOR CONTOUR TOP OF BANK STREAM FORD
(EXISTING) (PROPOSED)
MAJOR CONTOUR - - - THALWEG DIRT ROAD
(EXISTING) (EXISTING)
MINOR CONTOUR - - - - - CEN TERLINE j -- i VERNAL POOL
(PROPOSED) (PROPOSED) --?
MAJOR CONTOUR STEP CROSS- VANE SINGLE TREE
(PROPOSED) PINE
TOP OF BANK "J" HOOK CROSS-VANE
(EXISTING)
NE
?z 9.
w_
Ul cb
}
W rn
N
0
W
n
Qz
U$
z
F
z I,
? m
zo
Q
° z w
z m
!D
0 P. W
lY f}
I/
R
_.' ESS!
a SEAL
5 29216 =
9'?'YGINE?'?'`?
DATE: 03M=5
DESIGNED BY.
ppt
DRANK BY: DSThNVR
I CHECKED BY: JMRPnt
PROJECT NO.: suROaot
Fly' ambma ak 030305
SCALE NOTTOSCALE
0 o
V)
z ?o
5?T
2
z
o ?

W
? U
P.,

J o
z

w
w >.

AMBROSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
E
GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0 15 30 60
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 30 M

?
Z
w_

N
0
W h
N
N
C
Z m
U

J N Z
a
F
m
Z [7 v
O
? L
r ?
m
z O
a
o o

ui Z W
o

o m

X

t
?`,'1yl
, S r
a
.
SEAL r
29215
??••?
%9 AN
C ti

DATE 031=5
DESIGNED BY. PAJ
DRAWN BY. osm.
CHECKED BY; JMKPAJ
PROJECT NO.: SUR0401
I FILE. ambmse cAc 030305
SCALE: 1 30
z
0
?
F

o 0

W

L
U

0
w
m
Q U
W
0
r?

SHEET
3
MATCHUNE
SHEET 4
SHEET 3
OPOSED TOP OF BANK
REPAIR
_z
?U
m?
qVf?
m
E"VICTIKIh Tl1D (1C QAKII/
s
a
r
8
A
9
9
B
A
0
e
1
1
1
1
AMBROSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
NZE
to
2 ROOT WAD TYP.
s-?
X Wit:- J?h
19
VERNAL POOL o
1+ 4?3
GRAPHIC SCALE I
i
30 0 15 30 60
X50
IN FEET)
1 inch = 30 ft~

o l
I ti /~ ?a
00
1 /
v?? • ?? I ?l/ ?? ?? yol
I 1
i {
I
I i
4
`I
1
?1j?
,err
? / 1 I
d)
i(\?,00?zl
?..?
0
y ??a ? 9/i1C0 ?
MATCHLINE
SHEET 5
RIVER BIRCH SHEET 4
h RIVER IRCH

9s POPLAR
t?
r` /n
R
R IRCH
:
,
o?
? VERNAL POOL

J HOOK TYP.
S-3
2 STEP CROSS-VANE TYP.
S-2
MATCHLINE
SHEET 4
SHEET 3
N13
?Z
w_
N?c&
W rn
N
0
W N
Q Z
0
Z
c
m
7
m
QZ
Wm
Z
C3
Em
K
a SEAL
29216
%9yFNGINE?????
DATE: 01,01,35
DESIGNED BY: Pa
DRANK BY. DSTAVWR
CHECKED BY: ?atma
PROJECT NO.: SUR0401
f1lE em6ro" crk 030305
SCALE: 1.=3v
0

H
0 0

N
w
It
u
U)

?

i
V)

Y
0 w z?
m
Q
W
07 o
U
9
0

SHEET
4
v ov
!d

a
0
0
0
0
a
8
B
D
0
S
1
V7
AMBROSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION

UI tO
?
Z
w_
F-
U)

W m
N
0
W ?
N
J
Z
Q U
zo
J - Z
F
Z .2
O
K
m
z
Q O

O D

V I11 C
m
Z m

5 o
i
I
o
' t;SSJ
iz.
4 $EA f
29276
9'?N
q'
GINE
/,
\
//
\\\\\\
/l1111III? \

DATE: o7vavs
DESIGNED BY: pu
I DRAYM BY: DSTANWR
CHECKED BY. JMRPAJ
PROJECT NO.: SURD401
I Fly' embiose crk 070305
SCALE: t?3a
z
o
Q
a
o0

w

U 0
w z

0
m w
W
W
U o
a W ,,

0
o
?

9
5
l 013 ATITTTO CIO AT V nrnnnnv nl I rnnnn
t
B
6
H
0
D
D
0
A
e
B
a
1
1
1
SYMBOL KEY:
RF = Head of Riffle
ST = Step
RN = Head of Run
JK = J-Hook
PL = Head of Pool
GL = Head of Glide
106.OC
104.0(
102.0(
100.0c
AMBROSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
98.0(
96.0(
94.0(
92.0(

v7

a)
O

a)
0 r) 00

r-: ui
a) 0) 0 K)
r) m

r (6 vi
0) 0) rn N r) r)
O r)

cd 6
rn 0) 0) r)
O

Ui
a) n
N

6
01 r)
0

(6
a) O -042R
to O

4 m;Lc1)
a) 01

i
(D N NO
r r)r

Lid
a) rnm O Otn

?r)0
UQ
rnMm
' J
w J
w .J -1 J
w w w J J J
w w w J J J
w w w J
w
w
w J
w ul? -r
w J .JJ
w ww J -j -j-3
w www
o of o ui o c vi q? ri c ri vi r No ri od' riec '
rn

O oi

+
O W5 o N

+ + +
O 06 L r,

+ + +
N ? L
N
+ + +
N N r) N
LO
+
r) ui
N
+
r) C6
r)
+ (6 cd?
(0 0:
+ ++
d U-An

+
to cd 66
0) Nr)
+ ++
LO (0(o vi r,: .
I` CD 0.? rew
} ++++
U:) (0r-1?
a
V) Q
V) a¢ a
U) N En a d d
U) V) In a d a
rn U) N d
rn d
V) d
(n Q Qa
V) U)V) a
N d as
rn min a <<<<
V) (n U) U) vxr
zZ

tr J

IL LZ Z J

x a_ LL Z J

D_ rr a_ LL H Z

v7 J

a LL Z

rr J ui--

n. Qfv) Z - 0-7

n. mcn
Jtil-
2F
rr a.w-cn
1
I 1
I

0+00 1+00 2+00
RF, STA. 0+00.0, EL 97.70, BF EL 100.30
RN, STA. 0+19.0, EL 97.51, BF EL 100.11
PL, STA. 0+42.9, EL 96,01, BF EL 100.01
RF, STA. 0+75.0, EL 97.61, BF EL 100.01
RN, STA. 1+06.5, EL 97.31, BF EL 100.01
PL, STA. 1+25.0, EL 95.85. BF EL 99.85
RF, STA. 1+48.0, EL 97.33, BF EL 99.73
RN, STA. 1+85.5, EL 96.93, BF EL 99.73
PL, STA. 2+17.4, EL 95.61, BF EL 99.61
RF, STA. 2+58.3, EL 97.02, BF EL 99.52
ST, STA. 2+75.0, EL 96.53, BF EL 99.03
RN, STA. 3+21.4, EL 96.33, BF EL 99.03
PL, STA. 3+52.3, EL 95.03, BF EL 99.03
RF, STA. 3+85.3, EL 96.23, BF EL 98.73
3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00
RN, STA. 4+38.6, EL 96.03. BF EL 98.73
PL, STA. 4+66.7, EL 94.59. BF EL 98.59
RF, STA. 5+06.2, EL 96.04, BF EL 98.44
ST, STA. 5+14.01, EL 95.63, BF EL 98.03
RN, STA. 5+57.3, EL 95.36, BF EL 97.85
PL, STA. 5+96.1, EL 93.72, BF EL 97.72
RF, STA. 6+25.0, EL 95.32. BF EL 97.72
ST, STA. 6+35.4, EL 94.79, BF EL 97.69
RN, STA. 6+73.6, EL 94.50, BF EL 97.50
PL, STA. 6+97.3, EL 93.41, BF EL 97.41
RF, STA. 7+07.8, EL 94.38, BF EL 96.88
ST, STA. 7+18.9, EL 94.05, BF EL 96.55
RF, STA. 7+31.2, EL 93,82, BF EL 96.42
ST, STA. 7+41.9, EL 93.30, BF EL 96.10
BANKFULL
\\- THALWEG
7+00 7+41.87
N E3 E
s
?
?
z
w_

w
0
w N
J
Z 2

U
Q

< z
F
Z
Q o
n
a
< L tt
r m
H zo
Q
<
o C

V
0
o
w Zw=
a
m

r- qG:9
?

,
?`\1,(lF Il?
`
Z r
SEA1 -
29216
N
GIN6?.?w\Q
\?\\\\\
/?? ?
/! IIII1111

DATE: 03,103,105
DESIGNED BY: PAJ
DRAWN BY: DSTAVWR
CHECKED BY: JZ AJ
PROJECT NO.: SUR0401
I FILL amnmw crk 030305
SCALE NOT TO SCALE

W
J z
_
LL ? d

a 0o

U
Z
0 ?
J
Y zz

? W
V
w U U
N
0 w ?'
C
m

Q

SHEEP
6
AMBROSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
1
S-1
PERMANENT/TEMPORARY FORD
ISOMETRIC VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
SURFACE FLOW
DIVEFSION D25MG
STREAM CHANNEL
110• FLOW
x
LID "'o &E ON
?O w
6% k
I I STONE APPROACH SEC
TION
1:1 MIX SLOPE ON ROW
f CLASS B RIP RAP
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXREE
2
S-1
ROOT WADS
PLAN VIEW
NOT TD SCALE
FLOW
TIONAL
FOOTER LOO
;.
FLOW
ROOT WAD
NOTES:
1. CLASS B RIP RAP - MINIMUM DEPTH OF 24'
2. UNDERCUT FOR STONE PLACEMENT
FLOODPLAIN
PERMANENT/TEMPORARY FORD
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
SUR
FACE FLOW
DIVERSION
EXISTING SREFAL49ANf
CLASS B RP
NON-WOVEN CEOTEXn E
ROOT WAD
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
OR STONE
(OPTIONAL)
,face rwmtment
i erosion control
/or tronsplonts
FLOODPLAIN
N W E

? ?
z
w_
U
l

W m
N
0
w
N

Qz

a z
F Z
Z ?
(7 0
rv
° L
< I- m

z
Q
o
`
°

z Zw
v
ttl
O m
W ?

?SS
a
SEAL =
- 29215 =

DATE Garoaros
DESIGNED BY Pa
DRAWN BY: DST
CHECKED BY JM i?AI
(PROJECT NO.: SuR..1
FlLE •ambrose_creek_detab
SCALE' NOTTOSCALE

0 Q
E~
W 0 0

W

V z

? W
N
0
U U
W ?

N

__ J,
1J.HEET
S-1
AMBROSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
1 2 rT'?
S- Z BOULDER CROSS-VANE S- 2 STEP BOUT CROSS-VANE
EA S- 2 DOUBLE STEP
NOT TD SCALE NOT M SCALE BOULDM CROSS-VANE
PLAN M
NDT SCALE STEP NO MORE
THAN 6' DROP
BAN*I L CHANNEL W.DTH STEP NO MORE
BANlffULL CHANNEL WDTH THAN 6' DROP
SILL (OPTIONAL) 8 OZ NONWOVEN 8 OZ NONWOVEN
ELEVATION SHOULD FILTER FABRIC ' FILTER FABRIC
MATCH HEAD ROCK y APPROPRIATE CLASS APPROPRIATE CLASS
ELEVATION `r OF AGGREGATE STONE OF AGGREGATE STONE
SCOUR POOL SCOUR POOL
TYPICAL BOULDER SIZE TYPICAL BOULDER SIZE
APPROX. 3-4'x3'.2' APPROX. 3-4'x3'x2'
HEAD ROCK
1/3w"lAL l1/3 BAROIAL l1n BANOLII HEAD ROCK
1h wa u 11/3 BANOLAL l1/3 SAMT=
BOULDER CROSS-VANE STEP BOULDER CROSS-VANE
CROSS-SECTION VIEW CROSS-S
C
VIEW
E
S
NOT
BANIOTILL CHANNEL. WDTH
--------- OOD PLAIN BAN*V L CHANNEL WDTH
---
OODPUIN

° 8 OZ NONWOVEN
N
O
N
FILTER FABRIC ° TER
FABPoC
FIL
FOOTER ROCKS APPROPRIATE CLASS FOOTER ROCKS
APPROPRIATE CLASS
OF AGGREGATE STONE Of AGGREGATE STONE
4
S-2
STEP POOL
PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
ADER
X.
TE CLASS
ATE STONE
STREAM BED OR
CULVERT INVERT
FLOW -to-
8 OZ NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
BANKFULL CHANNEL W01H
1
SCOUR POOL
SCOUR POOL

HEAD ROCK - D?C7?L3
1/3 BAKKRAL I1/3 BANOUIL 1/3 SAN"M
STEP POOL
PROFILE MEW
NOT TO SCALE
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER ROCK
!APPROPRIATE CLASS
OF AGGREGATE STONE
8 OZ NONWOVEN
-'FILTER FABRIC
,-APPROPRIATE
CLASS OF
AGGREGATE STONE
TYPICAL BOULDER
SIZE APPROX.
3-4'x3'x2'
1/2' MAXIMUM
(TYPICAL)
NEB
Z9.
N
w_
U) c6
hl 'm
N
0
W n
.? m
Q Z
U
-i
- i
c
E3 m
7
L ?
r ?
m
Q Z o`
N
W
Z
m
W
LiA m
SEAL
19216 =
wiz NGIN...
DATE 0310105
DESIGNED BY: p,
DRAWN BY: DsT
CHECKED BY. JMH'PA,
PROJECT NO.: SURD401
FlLF-ambiose_a ek details
SCALE' NOTTOSCALE
J

f' 0
E~
? Q
?
q•1
W
0 0
H 0
W U
C.)
? W
N 0

Q

N U
vWi
0 U
?9

STEP POOL
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
VEGETATE BANKS NOT TO SCALE
I COIR MATTING

AMBROSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
1
S-3
"J" HOOK CROSS-VANE
PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
2
S-3
ROCK/LOG CHANNEL SILL
PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
RIP-RAP OR ALLUVIUM
BANK?ILL CHANNE4 W DTH
TYPICAL BOULDER SIZE
APPROX. 3-4"x3'x2' g
8 OZ NON-WOVEN
FILTER FABRIC 20-
APPROPRIATE CLASS
OF AGGREGATE STONE
1/3 BANKFULL 11113 BAN FULL 11/3 BANKFULL
TOP OF
FLOW
ROCK SILL SET AT
DESIGN INVERT
1/4 BANKFULL WDTH
MIMMUM EMBEDDING ON
EACH SIDE OF STREAM
OR
ROCK/LOG CHANNEL SILL
PROFILE VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
"J" HOOK CROSS-VANE
CROSS-SECT10N VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
UUMFAUItL
FLOOD PLAIN BANKFULL CHANNEL
CHANNEL INVERT
8 OZ NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
FOOTER ROCKS
APPROPRIATE CLASS (OPTIONAL) 3 FT. MIF
OF AGGREGATE STONE
NDISTURBED EARTH
N E3
?z
w_
ul
W 'm
N
0
W
N
J
Qz
U
Q z
F
Z E3
m
m
° K
m
zo
Q o
Zw"
z o
z m
w Kid'.
z
o Esii y?
,?.?,?,e?,9
a SEAL _
29215
IN
DATE: 0aroa?s
DESIGNED BY.
ppI
DRAWN BY. DST
CHECKED BY: ?Mwpa
PROJECT NO.: SUR0401
IFlLF'ambiose_aeek data,
SCALE' NOT TO SCALE
SHEET
S-3
J 0
F
W
W ?
? N0y
U
U ? z
N uwu?
U
0
?
W
N 0

STREAM BEI)

LOG SILL SET AT
DESIGN INVERT
I- I KS OR LOG
FLOW m-
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
C!
3
L"', I
L'i
H
U

n
AMBROSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
LIVE STAKE PLANTING
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
BANKFULL STAGE
............
.... .... .... ....m-? a....
BASEFLDW EL .....ON;
ANGLE-CUT END
COIR MATTING
• LIVE STAKES INSTALLED IN BANK
WITH DEAD-BLOW HAMMER
• 3/4 OF STAKE IN GROUND
*AT LEAST 2 BUDS ORIENTED UPWARDS
• 2' CENTERS (APPROX.)
COIR MATTING AND VEGETATION
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD
(RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE-MIN. 30')
11Vf 4 14 LIVE STAKES-
2' CENTERS
BARE ROOT SEEDLINGS
10' - 10' CENTERS AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT SEEDING
_:BANKFULL STAGE :'
.'.'.'::'.'.'..'...'.'....'.'.'.':.'.:.':.:.:.:.::.: '.
'.'.kfdCF'.Kt'lfW: CI'ClldtlnN':: ?/
BELOW GROUND
MATTING
STAPLED IN PLACE
Live Stakes
PLANT SPECIES
Common Name Scientific Name
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Black willow Salix nigra
* 2'x2' centers along outside meanders.
* 3'x3' to 4'x4' centers along riffle sections.
* Black willow shall not exceed 30%
of the species composition.
Trees
Common Name Scientific Name
Green ash
River birch
American sycamore
Tulip poplar
Swamp chestnut oak
Cherrybork oak
Box elder
* Min. 10'x10' centers
Small Trees/Shrubs
Common Name
Spice bush
Silky dogwood
Flowering dogwood
Elderberry
Tag alder
Black willow
* Min. 8'x8' centers
General Notes:
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Betula nigra
Platanus occidentalis
Liriodendron tulipifera
Quercus michaxii
Quercus pagoda
Acer negundo
Scientific Name
Lindera benzoin
Corpus amomum
Corpus florida
Sambucus canadensis
Alnus serrulata
Salix nigra
1. Species composition may vary depending on availability.
2. Planted material will consist of a minimum of 4 species
of trees and 2 species of shrubs.
YJ I7 E
z a
N
C
W_
W 'm
N
0
W N
J
U
Qz
- z
(7
m
Qzo
0
Z W
co
WMZFI
Lid
o to '1/0 %ij W
$ AL
29216
9'?NGIN
i?FS'M Np???C
DATE: o3M3ro5
DESIGNED BY: PAl
DRANK BY: DST
CHECKED BY: drnwP?u
PROJECT NO.: SUR0401
n O-'ambrose_creek de,,
SCALE' NOTT0SCALE
O
J 0 0
H U

O
Z
m
x
w
0

a 0
C4

a1 ?
SHEET
P-1
BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD
(RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE-MIN. 30')
V "lIf .1 to f,
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
9.0 Riparian Planting Plan
The proposed riparian planting plan was developed by integrating the native plant species
observed on site along with selected species known to inhabit the Piedmont/Mountain bottomland
forest community type as described in Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). According to the Schafale and Weakley publication,
"Very few bottomlands of any significant size remain. While many bottomlands exist as
successional forest grown up in abandoned fields, intact Bottomland Forests are among the rarest
of communities in North Carolina." Most of the bottomlands that have been cleared or logged in
the past were dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciua), or American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Integrating selected
species as described by Schafale and Weakley will institute species diversity.
The majority of the restored riparian zone will be located within the created bankfull bench and
toe slope areas. This area will be planted with bare root seedlings consisting of bottomland
hardwood species as outlined in Schafale and Weakley. Native trees and shrubs that are currently
located within the channel clearing and excavation limits will be removed with as much of the
' root ball intact and transplanted adjacent to the restored creek channel or bankfull bench when
possible. Trees as large as 4-inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) and approximately 20 feet
tall will be transplanted and integrated into the buffer restoration when available. The bare root
seedlings will be planted during the fall or early spring seasons, as soon as possible after the
completion of the earthwork associated with constructing the new stream channel. Plant species
that will be utilized within the restoration site are listed in the table presented in this section.

The restored active channel will be planted with the appropriate channel bank species in the form
of live stakes, bare-root seedlings, and transplants consisting primarily of black willow (Salix
nigra), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). If quantities
from on site sources are not plentiful the live stakes will be supplemented by locally identified
plant sources (i.e. existing power line right-of-ways (ROWs), adjacent properties, etc.) or
purchased from locally reputable nurseries. Black willow will not consist of more than 40
percent of the stream bank plantings.
The planting plan consists of individual hardwood tree species as listed in the table provided in
this section. The planting plan is provided on the design sheets in Section 8. The goal is to plant
400 to 600 bare-root seedlings per acre, with an approximate 8-foot to 10-foot spacing. Plant
composition will consist of at a minimum of at least four (4) of the tree species and two (2) of the
shrub species listed.

ONSE
17
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Sorry County, North Carolina • March 2005

Plant List
Scientific Name Common Name
Trees
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark oak
Betula nigra River birch
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak
Acer negundo Box elder
Ubnus americana American Elm
Driodendron tulipifera Tulip tree
Small Trees and Shrubs
Cornus amomum Silkv dogwood
Cornus florida Flowering dogwood
Alnus serrulata Tag alder
Lindera benzoin Spicebush
Salix nigra Black willow
Sarnbucus canadensis Elderberry
* Species composition may be adjusted based on local availability.
Temporary and permanent seed will be applied simultaneously to the disturbed areas and channel
embankments. Temporary seed will provide cover until the permanent seed applied becomes
established. Temporary cover will consist of millet (Echinochloa crusgalli), and rye grain
(Secale cereale). Permanent ground cover will consist of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum),
deertongue (Panicum clandestintnan), black-eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta), and riverbank wildrye
(Elymus riparius).

m
ONSE
18
Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005
0
11
0
x

0
1
10.0 References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1975. Sedimentation Engineering, Manuals and
Reports on Engineering Practice No. 54, Vito A. Vanoni, ed., New York.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology. John Wiley &
Sons Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Hannan, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R.
Everhart, R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North
Carolina Streams.
http://www5.bac.ncsu. edu/programs/extension/wqg/sri/rural_pi ed_paper. html
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1992. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology.
Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2003. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. December 2004. Surface Water
Classifications. http://dem.ehnr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.litm]
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. March 2005. North Carolina
Waterbodies Reports.
http://b2o.enr.state.nc.usibims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/hydroYadkin.I2df
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Rosgen, D.L. and Silvey, Lee. 1998. Field Guide for Stream Classification. Wildland
Hydrology.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. The Cross-Vane, W-Weir, and J-Hook Vane Structures... Their Description,
Design and Applications for Stream Stabilization and River Restoration. 2001 ASCE
Conference Proceedings. Reno, NV.
Schafale, Michael P. and Weakley, Alan S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina Third Approximation. NC Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources.
I Stream Restoration Institute (SRI). 2000. NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve.
http://www.bac.ncsu.cdu/programs/extension/wqg/sri/rural_pied_regcurves.html
ONSE
19

Ambrose Creek Restoration Plan • Yadkin 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina • March 2005

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Burke County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
and Federal Species of Concern.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/burke.html.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1992. Unpublished Soil Survey Field sheet for Surry
County, NC.
United States Geological Survey. 2005. Soil Data Mart for Surry County, NC.
http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/.
United States Geological Survey. 1974. North Carolina Hydrologic Unit Map.
United States Geological Survey. 1994. Elkin North, North Carolina 7.5-minute series
topographic map.
United States Geological Survey. 1971. Thurmond, North Carolina 7.5-minute series (]
topographic map. ?j
Ward, Andy D., Stanley W. Trimble. 2004. Environmental Hydrology, Second Edition. Lewis
Publishers.
Webster, W.B., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Wildland Hydrology. 1998. The Reference Reach Field Book. Wildland Hydrology.
Wildland Hydrology. 2001. Revised Sheilds Diagram (Colorado data included). River
Restoration and Natural Channel Design Manual. Wildland Hydrology. _
0
ONSE
20
f
t
"MpVP i 21 y `«
SCALE: w -.1000'
/'i 0
1000

1i
SITE

0
PIN
1000
0
LEE
1" = 1
FIGURE 3
NATURAL SYSTEMS SITE MAP WITH TAX PAI
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G AMBROSE CR STREAM f
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH
Raleigh, North Carolina [phone] www.nsepc.com DATE: MARCH 2005
I?? 1 I
RUTH
1
` t 3
r i
s
PROJECT SITE
e Y
• 3pe
S
r
\ AMBROSECREEK
DRAINAGE AREA 2.3 SQ Ml
t..: ,;p?
41*
t SCALE.- 1" = 1000'
D00 , , 0 500 1000
ORTHO PHOTOGRAPHS FLCNN 19

VARIES ^Wbkf
BASEFLOW ELEVATION (TYP.)
VARIES -?
STREAMBANK SLOPE NO
STEEPER THAN 2:1
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
?--VARIES --?- Wbkf
4
STREAMBANK SLOPE NO Dmax
STEEPER THAN 2:1 ON
OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BEND
TYPICAL POOL CROSS SECTION
(LEFT POOL SHOWN)
VARIES --?
ELEVATION (TYP.)
AMBROSE
TYPICAL CROSS
SECTION DATA TABLE CREEK
RIFFLE POOL
BANKFULL WIDTH 20 24
(Wbkf, ft)
MAXIMUM DEPTH 2.5 4.0
(Dmax, ft)
BANKFULL AREA 36-40 55-60
(Abkf, sq ft)
MEAN DEPTH 1.8 2.3
(Dmean, ft)
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO 11.1 9.6
(Wbkf/Dmean)
NOTE: CORNERS OF DESIGN CHANNEL SHALL BE
ROUNDED AND A THALWEG SHALL BE SHAPED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, PER THE DIRECTION OF
THE DESIGNER.
BANK SLOPE
NO STEEPER
THAN 2:1
BANK SLOPE
NO STEEPER
THAN 2:1
FIGURE 5
9 NATURAL SYSTEMS TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
E N G I N E E R I N G AMBROSE CR STREAM RESTORATION
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Raleigh, North Carolina [phone] www.nsepc.com DATE: MARCH 2005
co
cu
0
Q
0
c ?n
s.. ? N
? d
U ?
CU
C N
O
OC ? •?
0 a w
0 N
c E
'a rn 0
0 •(n
E 0 cn
;
)
Z
m
cn
0
E
I
I I I I I I I I I

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

I I
I '
I

I I
I ?
. I I I ? - ? I ? I i I I I I I I
I ,I I I I ? V I I I I I I I I I I I
I \ I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I
I' \ I I I

? ? ? I .I I I I ? I
?, I I I I ? I I I I I I I I
?? l i i ?1 I I l i I I I I I
I I II I I r
? ? l a I I I I I I
1 1 1 lI I ? ?I I I I \ I I I I

\! o
I i I

II I I i I l i l 1 1 I I I
I i l l I I I I I I I.\ I I

I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I III , \ Q I `\
I i \

I
I
I
I
? I
i
I
O O O
0 o O
O O
O
O
O
O
r
0
O

Cr
cn
ca
a>
O ?-
a
.a
a?
R

O
O
c
m
a?
v
a?
0
CL
0
Y
a?
L ?
v U
0
co o
U cn -0
a) Q
o a o
c
-0
c
m
H
ca
5 0
? ?I
N
0 U
o C C
o ? N
LO LO a) a)
a) (D
3
0 Q
J D (n (n
O
('Ij -bS) eaad -3oS-X IInjNUe8
102
101
100
c
m
.0 99
a?
w 98
97
96
0
Riffle Ambrose Creek
20 40 60 80
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Creek
description:
height of instrument (ft):
100 120 140
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
`l0'I
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
v
n

L
n
r?
L

L7
k
u
n
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Mr. Bob Cockerham
Mailing Address: 3704 Border Creek Court
Westport 11
Denver, North Carolina 28037
Telephone Number: 704-596-8900
E-mail Address:
Fax Number: 704-598-8965
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mr. Peter Jelenevsky
Company Affiliation: Natural Systems Engineering
Mailing Address: 3719 Benson Drive
Raleieh. North Carolina 27609
Telephone Number: 919-605-6134 Fax Number: 919-872-8444
E-mail Address: pjelenevskyna nsepc.com
Page 5 of 12
U-J
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Ambrose Creek Stream Restoration Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Nuinber (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 4955-00-21-1772, 4955-00-30-0670
4. Location
County: Surry Nearest Town: State Road
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take Interstate 77 north, take
U.S. 21 north approximately 5.7 miles and take a right onto Mountain Park Road (SR 1307).
Proceed down Mountain Park Road approximately 1.5 miles to the intersection of Mountain
Park Road and Pat Nixon Road (SR 1306). The site access road is directly across from Pat
Nixon Road. Once on the property the project area is located approximately 0.5 miles down
the dirt road that originates at the date located adjacent to Mountain Park Road. See
mitigation plan for the project site vicinity map
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 036°21'01.66" N 080°51'34.17"W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): approximately 70 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/occan/lake): South Fork of the Mitchell River
8. River Basin: Yadkin River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at htip://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)

Page 6 of 12
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Majority of the area is being utilized as hayland or is
forested. Upland areas along the ridge lines and adjacent to road possess infrequent single
family residences. This area is characterized as rural, and is dominated by agricultural and
forested land uses.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This
project will entail the restoration of approximately 1250 linear feet of Ambrose Creek (USGS
identifies this creek as Wood Branch) utilizing natural channel design techniques and locally
collected reference stream data. The type of restoration to be performed will be a Priority II
stream restoration. A Priority II restoration plan entails creating a flood plain at a lower
elevation along with creating a naturally meandering channel pattern characteristic of a riffle-
pool stream system. Additional details are located within the proposed restoration plan
Equipment that will be used will include hydraulic excavators, rubber-tracked carriers and
® front-end loaders.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To return the natural form and function to this
segment of Ambrose creek and by doing so reduce and potentially eliminate sediment loss
from the vertical embankments currently present and create/improve upon the in-stream
aquatic habitat. This project is not being used to mitigate for any proposed impacts and has
III been funded by the NC Clean Water Trust Fund.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State

Page 7 of 12

It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: No permanent impacts are
proposed, impacts if any will be temporary in nature and only occur during the construction
phase of the project.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:

n
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps arc available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fcma. eov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: +/- 0.1 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
u
u
n
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
N/A

List cacti impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dates (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
Page 8 of 12
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tol2ozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
u
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dan-dembankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
No permanent impacts are being proposed to implement the restoration of Ambrose Creek
VIII. Mitigation
n
Page 9 of 12
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://112o.enr.state.nc.us/newetiands/stmigide.litml.
1. Provide a brief description of'the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
This project is not being utilized as mitigation.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://li2o.enr.state.ne.us/wip/index.litm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):

Page 10 of 12

1
r

t

u
u
?_l

n
U
n
n

Mar 14 05 04:45p usda
3869828
f. Detailed discussion of the success of the project with respect to:
i. channel stability (instability, change from as-built dimension and longitudinal
profile, pooUrifle spacing, aggradation or degradation, pebble counts);
ii. photo documentation.(channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, erosion control, instream bars); and
iii. ecological function (vegetation survival, habitat, benthic macroinvertebrate
data such as EPT taxa richness, EPT abundance, total taxa richness, and
dominants in common).
g. Raw data for the entire monitoring period and a written narrative analysis and
summary of the data with respect to the water quality improvements achieved by the
project.
h. A map depicting the locations of the data collection sites.
11. The Fund and the Surry Soil and Water Conservation District shall work together to define
specific, meaningful monitoring requirements for this project. Monitoring may include a
subset of sites that represent a range of stream conditions. Monitoring may include the
following:
a. An 11x17 drawing showing the plan view of the site(s) locating all structures with station
numbers, permanent vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections and benchmarks,
beginning and ending points for longitudinal survey, and photo reference points.
b. Channel stability: Survey of the stream geometry (dimensions at permanent cross-
sections, pattern, longitudinal profile, and pebble counts as defined below) at project
completion (as-built condition) and annually for five years following project completion.
It is recommended that the Grantee follow field collection methods as outlined in Stream
Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique (Harrelson, Rawlins,
and Potyondy, USDA- Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, General Technical Report RM-245, April 1994) or similar stream monitoring
guidance.
i. Cross-sections: Establish at least I cross-section per 20 bankfull-width lengths of
stream to represent approximately 50% pools and 50% riffles. Measure the cross-
sections and provide drawings to demonstrate bank and channel changes over
time. The cross-section locations shall be selected to monitor structures or
features that may have an increased risk of failure. Each cross-section shall be
marked on both banks to establish the exact transect location- A common
benchmark shall be used for cross-sections and consistently used to facilitate easy
--- ---comparison of-year-to-year data: -Data shall be taken at a-scale-that-allows-the --
evaluation of bank and channel changes. Photos of each cross-section shall be
made. Data shall be included for cross-sectional area; bankfull-width, flood prone
width, width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, and stream type (for rifle cross
sections).
u. Longitudinal profile: A longitudinal profile shall be measured and drawn for each
site prior to construction. This profile shall be duplicated each year and the year to
year data compared. The beginning and end of each profile shall be well
demarcated and the length shall be at least 20 bankfull-widths. Data shall be
included for average slope rifles, average slope pools, number rifles, and number
p.5
Suny S&WCD-Stream Restoration, S. Fork Mtchell River, CWMTF No. 2002A-405 17
1
0
L
C..
L
CI
L
n
L
1
0
Mar 14 05 04:46p usda
3869828
p.6
. pools.
iii. Pebble counts: An evaluation of bed material changes shall be made by conducting
a pebble count along at least two of the reference cross-sections. A 100-particle
sample shall be collected at each cross-section. Particles shall be randomly
selected according to standard procedures. Particle size distributions shall be
compared to initial pebble counts and to year to year samples. Data should be
included for the D16, D50 and D84.
c. Photo reference sites: Electronic photographs of the project shall be taken before, during
and after completion. The location of all photos shall be marked in the field as the photo
reference points, and all photos shall be taken from the same reference points as the
project progresses. If an electronic format is not possible, submit photographs. Photos
must be identified with date, location, and photo reference location number. A project site
map shall be provided showing the location of each photo reference point. The stream
shall be photographed beginning at one end of the site and moving to the other end with
photographs taken at delineated locations. Photo reference locations shall be marked and
described for future reference. Points should be close enough together to get an over all
view of the reach and cross-sections Including the streambed and both banks). The angle
of the photo will depend on the angle that provides the best view and should be noted and
continued in future photos. The photo reference points should not be changed unless
absolutely necessary. When reference points must be moved, the new location shall be as
close as possible to the old location with changes noted- The new location shall then be
used in all future photos.
d. Benthic macroinvertebrate and habitat monitoring: Monitor at least three locations
(above, within and below the project) before the project begins and annually for a period
'of five years after construction is complete. Post-construction monitoring shall begin one
year after the stream restoration is complete. Monitoring protocol for benthie
macroinvertebrates and habitat shall follow DWQ's Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects, December 2001 or latest
version. See http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/dave.pdf. Benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring shall be conducted only by staff who have been
trained and certified to collect benthic macroinvertebrates as part of the 401
certification process or have obtained a Certificate of Completion from DWQ's
training course: Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols For Stream Mitigation And
Restoration Projects As Related To NCDENR DWQ 401 Certifications.
e. Plant survival monitoring: The Grantee shall monitor survival of vegetation in areas that
are seeded, and in areas that include live stakes and planted trees. Survival of vegetation
shall be evaluated using survival plots or direct counts. Coverage by the cover crop shall
be evaluated at regular intervals for the first 2 months following construction. Seeded
areas shall be subjectively evaluated using photographs of at least 4 survival plots; plots
shall be 1-meter square and photos shall be taken at least twice per year, in the summer
and in the winter, the location of these photos shall be marked in the field as the photo
reference point, and all photos shall be taken from the same reference points as the project
progresses. Photos must be identified with date, location, and photo reference location
number. Survival of live stakes shall be evaluated using at least 3 plots. Plot size shall
allow for evaluating at least 100 live stakes. All bare rooted trees shall be flagged with
identification numbers; trees shall be examined twice per year, in the summer and in the
winter.
Surry S&WCD-Stream Restoration, S. Fork Mitchell River, CWMTF No. 2002A-405 18
L
0
s

0
0
0
L
a
LL.
so
11
1
?
.?
? _,_ ? ., 1_