20051290 Ver 1_Restoration Information_20050706

•
•
•
•
McCain Site
Randolph County, North Carolina
Stream Restoration Plan
•
•
Contract No. EW-02040S 2 0 0 5 1 2 0 0
State Project No. 020594001
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
•
•
•
June 2005
•

• Stream Restoration Report McCain Site, Randolph County, NC
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) initiated the McCain Property Stream
. Restoration Feasibility Study in April 2003 to evaluate the feasibility of restoring a degraded section
of an unnamed tributary to Back Creek (UTBC). The purpose of this mitigation project would be to
compensate for unavoidable stream and buffer impacts in the Upper Yadkin River Basin resulting
. from planned NCDOT Transportation Improvement Projects. With the creation of the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), this project was shifted to this new agency for completion.
. The project site is part of a 71.54-acre parcel owned by Ms. Sigrid N. McCain that is located
approximately one mile southeast of the intersection of Lake Lucas Road (SR 1518) and Spero Road
(SR 1504) in Sophia, Randolph County, North Carolina. The property is an active livestock farm,
. with a portion of the property dedicated to pasture and livestock grazing. The primary land uses on
the property include rangeland, agriculture (small grain), and hardwood forest. UTBC is a second-
order, perennial stream that drains in a southerly direction across the subject property before joining
Back Creek. The 2,475-foot project reach is located within USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040103050050
(Lower Yadkin watershed), in a non-targeted portion of the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
Sub-basin 03-07-09.
- A significant portion of UTBC within the project site has been degraded due to poor grazing
management and the removal of riparian vegetation. The stream channel in several locations was
- historically relocated hard against the valley walls to open of the valley bottom for farming.
Coordination with the landowner was conducted to identify current and planned land use
• requirements associated with the project site. A Rosgen Level III assessment and qualitative stream
- stability evaluations were conducted to characterize existing stream conditions and determine the
potential for restoration. Further, the presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential
- to constrain restoration activities on the project site was evaluated.
a A reference reach study of Richland Creek in a nearby watershed and an upstream reach of UTBC
were conducted. A rain gage, stream gages and scour chains were installed on the UTBC in the
- project site to evaluate flows and sediment transport. From sediment transport modeling, a design
shear stress was established for the anticipated gradation of the relocated streambed. Based on the
reference reach surveys and sound geomorphic principles, the proposed mitigation stream alignment,
- profile and typical cross sections were developed.
The proposed stream restoration plan is to build a 2,445-foot long meandering stream that falls within
- the Rosgen stream types Bc4 and C4. Two stream types are necessary because the valley slope
changes through the project site. The proposed stream will be relocated off of the existing valley
walls into the bottom of the valley. This relocation stream channel was adjusted in profile such that
• the channel bed will be located in an alluvial gravel layer that has been observed in the valley. The
• stream channel cross sections were designed to be hydraulically stable with a gravel stream bed. A
minimum width 50-foot buffer will be provided on both sides of the proposed channel. This buffer
- will have 3660-feet of exclusion fence, three stable stream crossings, and a re-vegetation plan. This
re-vegetation of the 8.4-acre conservation easement will consist of shrubs on the stream channel
banks and woody plantings on the floodplain within the exclusion fencing.

w
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Stream Restoration Report McCain Site, Randolph County, NC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
1.1 General Description ............................................................................................................1
1.2 USGS and NCDWQ River Basin Designations .................................................................. l
2.0 Project Site Location ..................................................................................................................1
2.1 General Description ............................................................................................................ 1
2.2 USGS and NCDWQ River Basin Designations .................................................................. 1
2.3 NCDWQ Surface Water Classification .............................................................................. 3
3.0 Watershed Characterization ......................................................................................................3
3.1 General Description ............................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Drainage Area ..................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Land Use and Development Potential ................................................................................. 3
3.4 Historic Resources .............................................................................................................. 3
3.5 Cultural and Archaeological Resources ............................................................................. 4
3.6 Effect on Natural Resources ............................................................................................... 4
4.0 Existing Site Conditions Survey ................................................................................................8
4.1 General Site Description ..................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. . 8
4.3 Existing Riparian Buffer and Natural Communities ......................................................... 10
4.4 Existing Stream Characterization ..................................................................................... 10
4.4.1 Morphological Description .................................................................................. 10
4.4.2 Channel Evolution Stage ..................................................................................... 10
4.4.3 Stability Assessment ............................................................................................ 11
4.5 Constraints Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 13
4.5.1 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 13
4.5.2 Utilities and Easements ........................................................................................ 13
4.5.3 Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................................ 13
5.0 Reference Reach Analysis ........................................................................................................15
6.0 Restoration Design ...................................................................................................................15
6.1 Stream ...............................................................................................................................15
6.2 Riparian Buffers ................................................................................................................16
7.0 Sediment Transport Analysis ..................................................................................................30
7.1 Competency ...................................................................................................................... 30
7.2 Capacity ............................................................................................................................ 31
8.0 Flooding Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 31
9.0 Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 32
9.1 Duration ............................................................................................................................ 32
9.2 Reporting .......................................................................................................................... 32
9.3 Stream Stability ................................................................................................................. 32
9.3.1 Dimension ............................................................................................................32
9.3.2 Pattern ..................................................................................................................33
ii
i
0
Stream Restoration Report McCain Site, Randolph County, NC
9.3.3 Profile .................................................................................................................. 33
9.3.4 Bed Materials ...................................................................................................... 33
9.4 Photographic Reference Points .........................................................................................33
9.4.1 Cross Section Reference Points ........................................................................... 33
9.4.2 Longitudinal Photograph Reference Points ......................................................... 33
9.4.3 Additional Photograph Locations ........................................................................ 33
9.5 Bank and Riparian Vegetation Monitoring ....................................................................... 33
References .................................................................................................................................. 34
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Project Drainage ......................................................................................................... .. 5
Figure 3. Soils .............................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4. Land Use/Land Cover ................................................................................................ .. 7
Figure 5. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6. Aggradation - Degradation Stream Evolution Sequence ........................................... 11
Figure 7. Stream Profile ............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 8. Constrictor Cross-section .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 9. Proposed Cross-sections ............................................................................................. 20
Figure 10. Proposed Cross-sections ......................................
Figure 11. Proposed Cross-sections ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 12. Proposed Cross-sections ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 13. Project Location and Plan Layout .............................................................................. 22
Figure 14. Details: Typical In-Stream Structures ........................................................................ 23
Figure 15. Restoration Plan ......................................................................................................... 24
Figure 16. Restoration Plan ......................................................................................................... 25
Figure 17. Restoration Plan ......................................................................................................... 26
Figure 18. Planting Plan .............................................................................................................. 27
Figure 19. Planting Plan .............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 20. Planting Plan .............................................................................................................. 29
TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Existing Channel Morphology ............................................................... 10
Table 2. Summary of Design Constraints ......................................................
Table 3. Property Ownership History ....................................................................................... 14
Table 4. Priority Levels of Incised River Restoration .............................................................. 17
Table 5. Morphological Design Criteria ................................................................................... 18
APPENDICES
. Appendix A. SHPO Documentation
Appendix B. Natural Heritage Program Findings Letter
Appendix C. Project Site Existing Conditions Data
Appendix D. Stream Design & Sprea " x -ets
. Appendix E. Reference Reach Data
Appendix F. Sediment Transport Data

iii
L
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property. Randolph. Co.. NC
- 1.0 INTRODUCTION
• The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) initiated the McCain Property Stream
- Restoration Feasibility Study in April 2003 to evaluate the feasibility of restoring a degraded section of an
unnamed tributary to Back Creek (UTBC). The purpose of this mitigation project would be to compensate for
unavoidable stream and buffer impacts in the Yadkin River Basin resulting from planned NCDOT
- Transportation Improvement Projects. With the creation of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) this project was shifted to this new agency for completion.
- 1.1 Project Description
The EEP intends on utilizing the McCain Site in Randolph County for a comprehensive restoration of the
- stream and its woody corridor across an active cattle-rearing pasture. This restoration plan presents detailed
information regarding the existing site and watershed conditions, the morphological design criteria developed
from a selected reference reach, and the project design parameters based upon natural channel restoration
- methodologies.
a 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
•
The goals and objectives of the McCain Site Mitigation Project are to:
¦
Restore stable channel morphology that is capable of moving the flows and sediment provided by its
. watershed;
. ¦ Reduce sediment-related water quality impacts resulting from lateral bank erosion and bed degradation on
the downstream Back Creek and reservoir;
- ¦ Improve aquatic habitat diversity through the enhancement of riffle-pool bed variability and the use of in-
stream structures;
¦ Restore vegetative riparian buffers and vegetated channel banks utilizing native plant species; and,
¦ Provide a fenced corridor with stabilized access for cattle watering.
2.0 PROJECT SITE LOCATION

- 2.1 General Description
The project site is a 2,475-foot section of perennial stream that is situated on part of a 71.54-acre parcel
. owned by Ms. Sigrid N. McCain that is located approximately one mile southeast of the intersection of Lake
Lucas Road (SR 1518) and Spero Road (SR 1504) in Sophia, Randolph County, North Carolina (Figure 1.
Vicinity Map). UTBC is a second-order, perennial stream that drains in a southerly direction across the
. subject property before joining Back Creek.
The property is an active livestock farm, with a portion of the property dedicated to pasture and livestock
i grazing. The primary land uses on the property include rangeland, agriculture (small grain), and hardwood
forest. There is a large pole barn for storing livestock feed and agricultural machinery. A private residence
. and two small storage sheds are located in the southwestern portion of the subject property. UTBC and its
. associated riparian area run along the eastern property boundary.
2.2 USGS and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
. The project reach is located within USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040103050050 (Yadkin River Basin), in a non-
targeted portion of the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Sub-basin 03-07-09.
. 1
C2?ow

v
Usk City of Asheboro
Randolph County
1. Vicinitv Man McCain Site
' Y
I
COS Stem
ar ement
PROGRAM
Project Reach
N Streams
Roads
4000 0 4000 Feet
Railroads
W
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph, Co., NC
-
2.3 NCDWQ Surface Water Classification
- The NCDWQ assigns surface waters a classification in order to help protect, maintain, and preserve water
quality. The unnamed tributary to Back Creek has not been rated by the NCDWQ. However, Back Creek
(NCDWQ Stream Index Number 13-2-3-3-(0.3)) from its source to a point one mile downstream of Randolph
. County SR 1504 is designated a "WS-II HQW" usage classification (NCDENR, 2002). WS-II indicates
waters protected as water supplies, which are usually in predominantly undeveloped watersheds and only
general permits for discharges are allowed. WS-II waters are also protected for Class C uses, which include
- fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and secondary recreation that
involve human body contact with the water. The "HQW" is a supplemental classification intended to protect
water bodies with water quality higher than state standards. WS-1I waters are HQW by definition.

3.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION

. 3.1 General Description
The project site is located in a rural setting within the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion of the Piedmont
physiographic province. Site topography is characterized as rolling to hilly with elevations ranging from 670
feet above mean sea level (AMSL) near the McCain residence to 530 feet AMSL at the downstream project
limits on UTBC. The elevation change along UTBC falls from approximately 550 feet at the upper part of the
. site to approximately 530 feet at the lower end of the project, a longitudinal valley distance of 1,988 feet
. (1.0% mean slope).
3.2 Drainage Area
The drainage area contributing to the most downstream extent of the project reach is 0.88 square miles
(Figure 2. Project Drainage). The soils types of the watershed are presented in Figure 3 (Soils).
3.3 Land Use and Development Potential

. An Anderson Level I classification indicates that the contributing drainage area consists of. forest (67%),
agriculture (16%), rangeland (12%), and urban (4%) land use / land cover (Figure 4. Land Use /Land Cover).
Due to the rural nature of the area, the potential exists for future development. However, development
. pressures are currently considered low, and there are currently no obvious signs of development.
3.4 Historical Resources

Historic aerial photographs were obtained from the Randolph County Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) office in order to enhance the assessment of existing site conditions. The intent of the review
. was to understand the chronology of land disturbance and aid in the evaluation of the site and the
development of an appropriate restoration strategy. Aerial photographs of the site were obtained from 1937,
1957, and 1966.
•
In 1937, the subject property looked very similar to current conditions; no significant differences are
discernable at the scale and quality of the photo. The stream valley was cleared at that time, and presumably
used for agriculture or pasture. The stream channel appeared to follow the p%i.:?;rn observable today. No
changes in either the stream valley or stream channel within the project area were observed in the 1957 or
1966 aerial photographs. Therefore, any alterations to the stream channel occurred before 1937, and there
have been no significant changes to the project area since then.

. 3

Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property. Randolph, Co., NC
3.5 Cultural and Archaeological Resources
To evaluate the presence of significant cultural resources on the subject property and the potential that the
proposed project would impact them, KCI requested a formal review at the North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). No historic preservation sites nor sites of
archeological importance were noted on the McCain Property (See Appendix A).
3.6 Effect on Natural Resources
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RTE)
KCI conducted an informal file review at the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's (NHP) office in
order to identify the potential for the presence of rare, threatened, or endangered species within a one-mile
radius of the project site. This review did not reveal the presence of any known rare, threatened, or
endangered species. Appendix B includes the NHP list of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and
Critical Habitats in Randolph County and the state and federal status for each species.
Additionally, KCI requested a formal review by the NHP to identify the presence of rare species, critical
habitats, and priority natural areas on the project site and to determine the potential impact of the proposed
project on these resources. In a letter dated May 21, 2003, the NHP indicated that there are no records of such
resources either at the site or within one mile of the project area.
Wetlands
A review of the Randleman, North Carolina National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map identified no wetlands
within the project study area. Further, no wetlands were identified in the project study area during the field
investigation (April 2003).
4

f
l

I (,J
o ?.
-4??
Figure 2. Pro'ect Drainage McCain Site
Y
Project Reach
Streams
{ , Ya eme Q Drainage Area
1 ?d1tl.elllellt 900 0 900 Feet
PROGRAM 0.88 sq. miles
Source: Randleman USGS 7.5'Topographic Quadrmgle
Figure 3. Soils McCain Site
.r Soil Types
Goldston Very Channery Silt Loam /V Streams
?; Georgeville Silty Clay Loam
h1f pVeni Q image Area
E11 llellt Georgeville Silt Loam
Do a Sandy Loam
500 0 500 Feet
Badin-Tatum Complex

• Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property. Randolph Co. NC
- 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT
A site field assessment was conducted in April 2003 to document existing conditions and evaluate the
- potential for stream and riparian buffer restoration. Observations and collected data are described below,
illustrated in Figure 5 Existing Conditions and documented in the site photographs (Appendix Q. The site
was revisited from April to December 2004 several times to take further measurements, to install a rain gage
- and stream gages, to sample the stream bed, to survey the immediate upstream reach to compare with a
reference reach, and several times to download data and take more sediment samples.
4.1 General Site Description
As the project location can be seen on the Figure 5; the valley has four natural bends, in which the stream
• channel flows near the low spot in the valley. It appears that in the two western bends of the valley that the
stream may have been relocated hard against the valley wall to allow the valley bottom to be actively farmed,
then pastured. Such an active relocation was undisputedly found on the upstream adjacent property.
. In the two western valley bends, the channel is incised, with this incision extending through the Dogue loamy
soil and into soils and sediment deposits, which are over 300 years old and predate the Dogue's depositional
event. The upstream western bend in the valley appears to have eroded through a channery deposit and
eroded down to bedrock in places. The downstream western bend in the valley is adjacent to some severe
gully erosion caused by cattle taking short cuts to the stream channel. The two eastern bends of the valley are
in better condition partly due to fences on the east bank preventing the cattle from climbing the far banks. In
the upstream eastern valley bend, the stream does not strike the valley wall but, is never the less, heavily
impacted by cattle movement because its low banks allow easy access. The lower eastern valley bend has the
only true meandering stretch of stream channel that has exposed some bedrock. This meandering has caused
. some outer bends to consist of severely eroded valley wall cuts.
The unlimited access to the stream channel by rearing cattle (weaned calves to heifers and young bulls) has
resulted in stream banks that have little vegetation and a channel bottom that has been thoroughly mixed and
in some places compacted. The three tributaries on the project site also have some erosion problems, partly
due to the down cutting of the main valley channel over the last century. The project ends where this
meandering valley confluences with the much larger floodplain in the Back Creek valley. The project site is
the only place on this un-named tributary to Back Creek where the creek is not bordered by forest. A mile
downstream on Back Creek is a small water supply reservoir.
• 4.2 Geology and Soils
Local geology consists of metamorphic rocks of the Charlotte and Milton Belts overlying metamorphic rocks
. within the Carolina Slate Belt. These include metamorphosed volcanic rock, metamudstone, meta-sandstone,
and metaconglomerates. These metamorphic rocks date from the Cambrian Period to the Late Proterozoic
Era (500 to 900 million years ago). Predominant soil types located within the project site include Dogue
. sandy loam and Goldston very channery silt clay loam in the stream valley, and Badin-Tatum complex in the
upland pasture. The predominant soil types within the project watershed include Badin-Tatum complex and
Georgeville silty clay loam.
Dogue sandy loam (DoB) is nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil found on floodplains,
formed in alluvia; deposits. Dogue soils are subject to frequent flooding, and have inclusions of hydric soils
. or wet spots. Badin-Tatum complex (B,JB2, BfC2, BtB2, BtC2, and BaD) soils consist of strongly sloping
Badin soils and Tatum soils on uplands. These soils formed in residuum from Carolina slates and other fine-
grained rocks, and are moderately deep to deep and well-drained. Georgeville silty clay loam (GeB2) soils are
8
P
?.7 McCain Site Mitigation Plan
t'rn ° Fleure 5. Existine Conditions
Project Reach Debris Jam
/Drainage Swale • Bedrock Outcrop
`Fence 4 Tree
Cattle Crossing Sink Hole
[?] Parcel Boundaries
Utility Easement
100 0 100 Feet
S.dr 1:11K r- Ifr
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph. Co.. NC
gently sloping, very deep, well-drained, eroded soils found on uplands. Goldston very channery silt clay loam
(GoE) is moderately steep to steep, shallow, well-drained to excessively drained soils found on uplands.
These soils formed in residuum from Carolina slates.
4.3 Existing Riparian Buffer and Natural Communities
The existing riparian buffer is a rural cattle rearing pasture, which is largely devoid of natural habitat
communities within the fence line. At one location on the project, the east side of the floodplain is fenced
and a herbaceous community exists with a mix of wetland and upland species. Trees along the stream are
limited to top of bank, interspersed with open areas, with only a few good connections to the woods on the
valley slopes. The valley on the upstream adjacent property is entirely forested with good understory and
ground level strata.
4.4 Existing Stream Characteristics
4.4.1 Morphological Description
A Rosgen Level III assessment was conducted to gather existing stream dimension, pattern, and profile data
and determine the potential for restoration. Channel cross-sections and bed materials were surveyed at four
representative locations along UTBC. Data developed from these surveys are summarized below (Table 1)
with detailed data provided in Appendix D.
Tahle 1. Summarv of F,xistinu Channel Mnrnholoov_
Parameter UTBC XS-1 UTBC XS-2 UTBC XS-3 UTBC XS-4
Abkf S ft 21.30 26.00 25.70 29.30
Wbkf ft 19.36 21.17 14.63 19.41
Wf a ft 34.0 NA 125.0 125.0
dmbkf ft 1.72 2.34 3.48 3.34
Dbkf ft 1.10 1.23 1.76 1.51
W/D ratio 17.6 17.2 8.3 12.9
Entrenchment Ratio 1.76 NA 8.54 6.44
Bank Height Ratio 1.03 1.69 0.99 1.06
Local W. S. Slope ft/ft 0.011 0.0002 0.0014 0.0025
Discharge cfs 83.93 NA 61.44 87.76
D50 mm 22 9 0.34 0.2
Stream Type 134c --- ES C5
4.4.2 Channel Evolution Stage
Conceptual channel evolution models are used to describe the sequential changes a stream undergoes after
disturbance and predict its most probable stable endpoint (stream type). The Simon Channel Evolution Model
(Simon, 1989), commonly used in sand or strongly alluvial systems, cannot be used at the McCain site for
two reasons. The un-named tributary to Back Creek is relatively steep and functions primarily as a sediment
transport reach with some bedrock control. The floodplain soil, Dogue, is a loam soil that primarily becomes
wash load when eroded. These two situations prevent the Simon's Stage IV/V f:;)rn developing. The Simon
model is based on the degradation to aggregation stream evolution sequence. However, on the lower UTBC,
the backwater conditions from Back Creek have created a transitional reach into the Back Creek floodplain
that from all indications appears to be Stage IVN, however the depositional processes are completely
different from that in the Simon Channel Evolution Model.
10
W
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property. Randolph Co. NC
.
The stream on the McCain site follows an aggregation to degradation stream evolution model (Schlindwein,
2004). In the late 1700s or early 1800s, the watershed was largely clear of the climax forest and the land
. utilized for row crops for decades. The steep slopes of the watershed lost their topsoil due to rainfall and
erosion quickly. This eroded topsoil ended up being deposited on the original floodplain. The original
floodplain may have been gravely and poorly suited to agriculture. The marginal fields of the watershed were
- abandoned and allowed to reforest. The deposition of eroded topsoil on the floodplain slowed down to the
point that the newly deposited Dogue soil became attractive bottomland for agriculture. With every spring
flood, a new layer of soil deposited on this floodplain (called "made land") that did not need to be fertilized
i each year to be productive. However, as the thick topsoil was lost from most of the watershed and forest re-
established on steep slopes, the sediment delivery to the stream system reduced significantly sometime after
the Civil War. This was the end of the aggregation phase of the stream evolution for most watersheds in the
. Piedmont.
With less sediment from these watersheds, the stream flow became "hungry water" and it gullied through the
. Dogue soil deposits. In any cases this gulling was in direct conflict with the farmer's efforts to crop these
. bottomlands, the streams were relocated hard against valley walls so that the fertile bottomlands could be
utilized. However with the end of "made land", these Dogue soils with low levels of organics and clay
. quickly became unproductive. In many cases these bottomlands were abandoned to reforest or converted to
pasturing. The steam types during this evolutionary phase went from being gullies to a wider eroded stream
type and possibly stabilized as a meandering stream type.
Gc ? F C
Figure 6. Aggradation -Degradation Stream Evolution Sequence (D. Rosgen)
The sequence of stream types using the Rosgen (1996) classification system is E-C-D-G-F-C, shown in
Figure 6. The E-C-D is the aggregation sequence and the G-F-C is the degradation sequence. The E channel
. ! type is a low sediment load meandering stream. The C channel type is a meandering riffle and pool sequence
with a good sediment load. The D channel type is a shallow braided channel that is choked with sediment.
The F channel type is a broad incised channel with long runs and short pools that can be stable in the humid
. east with woody vegetation on its banks. The C channel type may not develop on bedrock or higher gradient
reaches, in this case a Be channel type that has balanced runs and pools and is not incised can develop.
On the McCain site, the existing stream channel waivers in between the F, C and Be stream types. All of
. these stream types can be stable if their banks were allowed to re-vegetate with woody growth. A simple
fencing of the stream channel with reforestation would produce a significant improvement in the condition of
. this stream channel. However, because long sections of this channel have been thrown up against the valley
. walls, full stabilization would remain elusive. As a consequence, the preferred stable condition of this stream
would be a mix of C and Be stream channel types, relocated away from the valley walls.
i 4.4.3 Stability Assessment
From an overall site perspective, a number of factors have contributed to the 3egra,?-::tic-ri of the project reach.
. Certain sources of disturbance have occurred historically while others are more recent and ongoing. Historic
aerial photography dating to 1937 shows that both the site and the watershed have undergone relatively minor
changes in land use over the last 68 years. Therefore, instability created by logging within the watershed or
. the initial clearing of the site has most likely moved through the stream network and may not be causing

11
W
i
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph Co NC
•
significant adjustments in channel geomorphology at the present time. In addition, decreases in the base
elevation of Back Creek in response to historical changes in land use or the installation of dams and culverts,
i may have influenced or be influencing channel morphology of UTBC. However, it is probable that vertical
. grade control exists between the location of the site and the confluence of UTBC and Back Creek that would
prevent a headcut from advancing upstream to the site.
i
. The most significant factors contributing to stream degradation on site, both in the past and present, are the
impacts associated with cattle access to the stream and the absence of riparian and bank vegetation. The
resulting bank instability has allowed a majority of the project stream to incise, overwiden and straighten to
i varying degrees and other stream sections to experience overwidening and possibly meander migration. The
presence of shallow bedrock contacts on site has prevented the stream from incising further.
i
To better understand the existing and possible future condition of the project stream, qualitative stability
assessments of distinct stream sections were developed based on both the dimensionless ratios (i.e.,
entrenchment ratio, bank height ratio) calculated from the cross-section data and visual observations.

Section 1 from Station 10+00 to -14+90 is a transitioning reach. This Type 134c reach is the steepest and
most entrenched section of the project stream with a bank height ratio of 1.21, entrenchment ratio of 1.76 and
w a slope of 0.011. Past disturbance of the stream caused this section to incise to bedrock elevation, overwiden
and straighten. At the present time, this section has begun to form a Type C channel within the older,
overwidened channel. The overall rate and extent of bank failure for the reach has declined and bar formation
. is active in a few locations where a meander planform is developing. Bank erosion potential is high in
localized areas of meander formation (e.g., the location of XS2), but sediment input from this section is
expected to be relatively low. Section 1 also experiences the least disturbance due to cattle access. A
combination of the high left bank heights with the proximity of the hill slope to the right bank greatly reduce
. the amount of physical damage directly caused by the cattle due to hoof shear and trampling. In addition,
approximately 145 feet of the upper portion of Section 1 is fenced out of the pasture area.

. Towards the downstream end of Section 1, the stream valley widens, channel entrenchment decreases and
water surface slope decreases. In contrast to Section 1, the stream in Section 2 is heavily impacted by cattle
access and exhibits large variations in width and degree of bank failure, resulting in high sediment input to the
. stream. In general, Section 2 from Station -14+90 to 20+05 is experiencing both aggradation and widening.
Historically, the channel was probably a Type C4, or possibly a Type C5 at the higher base elevation, that
downcut to become slightly entrenched, but not to a sufficient degree to classify as a Type G or Type F
. stream, and is now becoming significantly wider. The large amount of sediment contributed by the eroding
banks is causing channel aggradation that only exacerbates the need for the hydraulically inefficient,
overwidened channel to increase bankfull width.
It is important to consider this process of channel evolution where downcutting, widening and aggrading has
occurred when evaluating the bed material size distribution of the existing degraded channel in both Sections
. 1 and 2. The large amount of cobble and boulder-sized material is predominantly due to materials already
present in the soil column and weathered bedrock becoming exposed and worked into the bed of the active
channel. The presence of these larger size classes is not an indication of the bankfull sediment transport
. capacity of the existing stream.
Section 3 from Station 20+05 to - 34+45 is significantly different from Sections 1 and 2 in that the channel
r narrows considerate'; -end retains some original meander pattern. The bank height ratio decreases to 1.0 as the
. stream approaches the location of XS3. Section 3 is widening to a greater degree at the upstream end and
experiencing only minor degradation. The downstream reach of Section 3 is only moderately unstable with
almost no bed degradation, near vertical outside meander banks and inside meander banks that appear to be
. aggrading. This reach may be experiencing a slow meander migration as a result of the outside meander
. 12
W
•

Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph Co NC
•
banks being destabilized by lack of vegetation. This lower reach of Section 3 also exhibits relatively minor
riffle and pool morphology and low water surface slope.
0
- Cross sections 3 and 4 were classified as Type E5 and Type C5, respectively. This section may have been a
stable Type E5 that is undergoing moderate bank failure and will stabilize as a Type C5 stream. At the
present time, Section 3 seems to be undergoing the least amount of erosion and change in dimension, plan and
- profile of all the sections of the project stream.
• 4.5 Constraints
The presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder restoration activities on the
project site was evaluated. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of hazardous materials, utilities
- and restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species (RTE) or critical habitats, cultural resources,
and the potential for hydrologic trespass. Existing information regarding project site constraints was acquired
and reviewed. In addition, any site conditions that have the potential to restrict the restoration design and
implementation were documented during the field investigation. Table 2 summarizes the identified
constraints that may hinder the implementation of site restoration activities.
•
4.5.1 Hazardous Materials
The presence or likely presence of hazardous substances on the subject property and surrounding area under
- conditions that indicate a past, present or potential release into the ground, groundwater, or surface water was
• evaluated. The evaluation included a review of public record environmental database information and a
• visual site inspection.
• A report meeting ASTM E1527-00 Standards for records search requirements was obtained summarizing
. existing federal and state database information regarding known environmental conditions for the subject
property and surrounding area. No conditions of environmental concern were identified on the McCain
• Property or within the specified search radii. The visual site inspection was conducted in April 2003, and
• there were no potential environmental concerns to the project site or hazardous materials identified. The
findings were documented on an Environmental Screening Inspection Form with corresponding photographs.
•
0 4.5.2 Utilities and Easements
KCI obtained copies of the property deed dating back to 1936 from the Randolph County Tax Office in April
• 2003 (Table 3). A power line easement transects the subject property in a southwest-northeast orientation,
- crossing UTBC at Station 19+70. The documentation for the power line easement was not found in the
records at the Randolph County Tax Office. KCI determined that Randolph Electric is the power company
• that owns the easement (Contact: Ron Gunnell at [phone] ext. 342).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
Trees will be planted outside of the utility easement. A fall zone will, by default, extend to the edge of the
utility easement. The power company will likely retain the rights to maintain "dangerous" trees immediately
adjacent to the utility easement, following coordination with the holder of the conservation easement.
There will be no management agreement with the power company. The utility easement will be excluded
from the conservation easement for the McCain Mitigation Site.
4.5.3 Hydrologic Trespass
The proposed project reach is entirely contained within the McCain property. The restorat .,_; -f the project
reach is not anticipated to produce hydrologic trespass conditions on any adjacent properties.
13
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Prooer&. Randolph, Co., NC
Table 2_ Snmmarv of Desinn Constraints
Fatal Flaw/Constraint Nature of Constraint Proposed Resolution
Current Land Use (specify) Livestock grazing, grain
agriculture, forest
Adjacent Property Land Use Forest, agriculture, low-density
residential development
Landowner Concerns Cattle access to water Incorporate stable cattle stream
crossings into proposed design
to allow access to water and
pasture
Deed Restrictions/Easements Utility easement crosses project Exclude utility easement from
site the conservation easement.
Project contractibility/access Steep wooded hill slopes around Access along utility easement.
project site Verify whether improvements
can be made within the
easement (overhead).
Utilities Overhead power lines cross Preserve access to utility
project site easement for utility maintenance
needs
Structures N/A
Cultural SHPO Review - No occurrences
(historical/archaeological) (Appendix A).
Rare, Threatened, and Natural Heritage Program
Endangered Species Findings Letter (Appendix B)
indicated no record of
occurrences within one-mile
radius of the project site.
Natural Features (soils, bedrock) Bedrock outcrops in streambed Accommodate bedrock presence
and banks into prop osed design
FEMA Regulated Area Project area within Zone C (area
of minimal flooding, with no
detailed modeling required)
Table 3. Pronertv Ownershin Historv
Book Page Grantee (buyer) Grantor seller Date
813

1 234 Terry W. and Sigrid Nissen
McCain Glenn M. and Mary E. Surratt 10/2/62
584 556 Glenn M. and Ma E. Surratt Edgar G. and Odelia C. Lineberry 9/19/55
584 555 Edgar G. and Odelia C. Lineberry T.R. and Kathleen Lineberry 9/17/55
276 259 T.R. Lineberry Edgar G. Linebe 3/14/36
14

Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph, Co.. NC
s
5.0 REFERENCE REACH ANALYSIS
A reference reach is a channel with a stable dimension, pattern, and profile within the particular valley
. morphology. The reference reach is used to develop dimensionless morphological ratios (based on bankfull
stage) that can be extrapolated to disturbed/unstable streams to restore a stream of the same type and
disposition as the reference stream (Rosgen, 1998). The selection criteria included a stable reach occurring
r under similar hydrophysiographic, landform, and watershed land use conditions.
S The project site occurs in rolling to hilly terrain of the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion of the Piedmont
. physiographic province. The project stream runs through a gently sloping valley (average slope of
approximately 0.8%) with alternating toe slopes. The project watershed is a small (0.88 square miles),
primarily forested watershed with a small percentage of agriculture, pasture, and rural, low-density residential
. land uses. A reference reach with similar site and watershed conditions was desired.
It was determined that the restored stream will contain sections of two Rosgen stream types - "C3" and "C4."
. The NCDOT reference reach database was used to select potential reference reaches with similar stream type
S and slope. The database did not contain any Rosgen "C3" type steams in the piedmont physiographic
province, however four potential "C4" reference reaches were visited to determine their use for this project.
. The reaches are listed below:
- UT to South Fork Cane Creek, Chatham County
. - Morgan Creek, Orange County
. - Spencer Branch, Montgomery County
Richland Creek, Moore County
s
s
0
a
Richland Creek was selected as a reference reach for the McCain Site. In addition, a second suitable
reference reach site was located on the project stream (UT to Back Creek), immediately upstream of the
project site. Each reference reach is described in Appendix E with the location, description, photographs, and
surveyed data.
6.0 RESTORATION DESIGN
The restoration design of the Un-named Tributary to Back Creek (UTBC) is based on a Priority Level 2
approach, as described in "A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers", (Rosgen, 1997).
For clarity and convenience, definitions of the four restoration priorities are provided in Table 4.
6.1 Stream
The design proposes constructing 2,445 linear feet of meandering channel. The restoration will establish a
bankfull channel with a new floodplain, a channel bed at its existing level in an existing gravel layer, and the
cross section dimensions necessary to provide stable flow maintenance and sediment transport. The design
bankfull stage will equal the floodplain elevation in the new channel (bank height ratio = 1.0). The proposed
stream dimension, pattern, and profile will be based on the detailed morphological criteria and hydraulic
geometry relationships developed from the reference stream, see Table 5. The establishment of a stable
bedform (i.e., riffle-pool sequence, pool spacing) will be addressed in the profiling of the design channel.
Refer to Figures 7 through 20 for the proposed channel dimension, pattern and profile.
In-stream structures will be incorporated to reduce the burden of energy dissipation on the channel geometry.
J-Vanes (Figure 14: Details) will be used to stabilize the restored channel. These structures are designed to
15
s
i
s
i
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph, Co., NC
reduce bank erosion and the influence of secondary circulation in the near-bank region of stream bends. The
structures further promote efficient sediment transport and produce/enhance in-stream habitat. Coir fiber
matting will be used to provide temporary stabilization on the newly graded streambanks. The confluence of
tributaries with the restored stream will be stabilized with grade control structures and step sequences where
necessary to match the proposed grade of the restored main channel. Excavated materials from the design
channel will be used to partially backfill the abandoned channel sections.
The restoration project will also include other non-stream related components:
• Cattle exclusion fencing will be installed along the outer boundary of the restored riparian buffers and a
permanent conservation easement will be recorded to protect the site in perpetuity.
• A gate will be provided in the cattle-exclusion fencing and a stabilized stream crossing provided for
machinery access to the utility easement.
• Two stabilized stream crossings will be installed to provide cattle and machinery access to isolated
pasture areas. Rock fords, fenced on either side to exclude cattle from further accessing the waterway, are
recommended measures for these crossings.
• Offline watering devices will be installed at a two locations.
6.2 Riparian Buffers
Native woody and herbaceous species will be used to establish fifty (50) foot wide riparian buffers on both
sides of the restored reach. Four hundred thirty-six (436) trees per acre (based on an average 10' x 10'
spacing) will be planted to achieve a mature survivability of three hundred twenty (320) trees per acre in the
riparian zone (DENR, 2001). Plant placement and groupings will be randomized during installation in order
to develop a more naturalized appearance in the buffer. Woody vegetation planting will be conducted during
dormancy.
Tree and shrub species to be planted may consist of the following:
Trees
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
Herbaceous vegetation within the buffer shall consist of a native grass mix that may include: big bluestem
(Andropogon gerardii), purple love grass (Eragrostis spectabilis), deertongue (Panicum clandestinum), gama
grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), and
Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus). Rye grain (Secale cereale) or brown top millet (Pennisetum glaucum)
will be used for temporary stabilization, depending upon the construction schedule.
On the restored stream banks, live stakes will be used in conjunction with the native herbaceous seed mix to
provide natural stabilization. Appropriate species identified for live staking include elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), silky willow (Salix sericea), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), and black willow (Salix nigra).
16
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property Randolph Co NC
Table 4. Priority Levels of Incised River Restoration-
Description Methods Advantages Disadvantages
Priori 1
Convert G and/or F stream Re-establish channel on Re-establishment of 1) Floodplain re-
types to C or E at previous previous floodplain using floodplain and stable establishment could cause
elevation with floodplain. relic channel or construction channel: flood damage to urban,
of new bankfull discharge 1) reduces bank height and agricultural, and industrial
channel. Design new streambank erosion, development.
channel for dimension, 2) reduces land loss, 2) Downstream end of
pattern, and profile 3) raises water table, project could require grade
characteristic of stable form. 4) decreases sediment, control from new to previous
Fill in existing incised 5) improves aquatic and channel to prevent head-
channel or with terrestrial habitats, cutting.
discontinuous oxbow lakes 6) improves land
level with new floodplain productivity, and
elevation. 7) improves aesthetics.
Priority 2
Convert F and/or G stream If belt width provides for the 1) Decreases bank height and 1) Does not raise water table
types to C or E. minimum meander width streambank erosion, back to previous elevation.
Re-establishment of ratio for C or E stream types, 2) Allows for riparian 2) Shear stress and velocity
floodplain at existing level construct channel in bed of vegetation to help stabilize higher during flood due to
or higher, but not at original existing channel, convert banks, narrower floodplain.
level. existing bed to new 3) Establishes floodplain to 3) Upper banks need to be
floodplain. If belt width is help take stress off of sloped and stabilized to
too narrow, excavate channel during flood, reduce erosion during flood.
streambank walls. End-haul 4) Improves aquatic habitat,
material or place in 5) Prevents wide-scale
streambed to raise bed flooding of original land
elevation and create new surface,
floodplain in the deposition. 6) Reduces sediment,
7) Downstream grade
transition for grade control is
easier.
Priority 3
Convert to a new stream Excavation of channel to 1) Reduces the amount of 1) High cost of materials for
type without an active change stream type involves land needed to return the bed and streambank
floodplain, but containing a establishing proper river to a stable form. stabilization.
floodprone area. Convert G dimension, pattern, and 2) Developments next to 2) Does not create the
to B stream type, or F to profile. To convert a G to B river need not be relocated diversity of aquatic habitat.
Be. stream involves an increase due to flooding potential. 3) Does not raise water table
in width/depth and 3) Decreases flood stage for to previous levels.
entrenchment ratio, shaping same magnitude flood.
upper slopes and stabilizing 4) Improves aquatic habitat.
both bed and banks. A
conversion from F to Be
stream type involves a
decrease in width/depth ratio
and an increase in
entrenchment ratio.
Priority 4
Stabilize channel in place. A long list of stabilization 1) Excavation volumes are 1) High cost for stabilization.
materials and methods have reduced. 2) High risk due to excessive
been used to decrease 2) Land needed for shear stress and velocity.
streambed and streambank restoration is minimal. 3) Limited aquatic habitat
erosion, including concrete. depending on nature of
gabions, boulders, and stabilization methods used.
bioengineering methods.
Jource: tcosgen, iyY/, -a Geomorphoiogicai approach to tcestorat:on oftncisea Kivers
17
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph, Co.. NC
Table 5. Morphological Design Criteria

McCain Property
Stream Restoration Design
Ranges
or
Target
Values Upstream
Reach
10+00
to
12+85 Middle
Reach
12+85
to
20+21 Transition
Reach
20+21
to
25+51 Lower
Reach
25+51
to
34+45 Average
Values

Stream Type B3cJC4
* Wbkf ft 18.8 18 24 20 18 20
Dbkf ft 1.1 1.367 1.042 1.. 8 1.417 1.277
* Abkf - (sq ft) 21.0 24.6 25 25.6 25.5 25.18
* Wbkf/Dbkf /D ft/ft 17.0 13.17 23.04 15.63 12.71 - 16.14
Dmax (ft) 2.0 2 ' 1.3 1.7 2 1.75
a Wf a (ft
g Wf a/VYbkf ER ft/ft
N Save - ft/ft 0.0060 0.006767 0.010447 0.007965 0.006788 0.005246
* K 1.5 1.254
* D50 mm 26.0
D84 mm 48.0
Vbkf fUsec 4.8 3.865 3.949 3.918 3.949 3.920
* Qbkf (cfs) 100.0 95 99 100 101

Wbkf (ft) 18.8 18 24 20 18 20
Dbkf (ft) 1.1 1.367 1.042 1.28 1.417 1.277
Abkf s ft) 21.0 24.6 25 25.6 25.5 25.2
Dmax (ft) 2.0 2 1.3 1.7 2 1.75
W Wf a (ft)

U. Dtob
ft
LL Vbkf (ft/sec) 4.8 3.865 3.949 3.918 3.949 3.920
p Qbkf (cfs) 100.0 95 99 100 101
rn Wbkf/Dbkf (W/D) ft/ft 17.0 13.17 23.04 15.63 12.71 16.14
w o Dmax/Dbkf fVft 1.6 1.463 1.248 1.328 1.411 1.363
FS Dtob/Dmax ft/ft
Wfp-aMbkf (ER) (ft/ft)
Wpool (ft) 28.2 20 24 20 20 21
D pool ft 2.2-2.75 3 2.33 2.8 3.33 2.87
p Apool (sq ft) 62-78 39.5 35.88 36.67 41.64 38.42
0
a co WpooVWbkf (ft/ft) 1.5 1.111 1.000 1.000 1.111 1.056
DpooVDbkf ft/ft 2.0-2.5 2.195 2.236 2.188 2.350 2.242
oo (ft2/ft2) 2.9-3.6 1.606 1.435 1.432 1.633 1.527
Lm ft 130-280 190.62 294.34 212 236.34 233.325
z Re (ft) 30-60 30-35 50-60 35-40 35-55 30-60
Wblt (ft) 100-250
W K 1.45 1.165 1.201 1.218 1.232 1.254
Q V) LmNVb ft/ft 10 to 14 _ 10.6 12.3 10.6 13.1 11.6
RcJWbkf ft/ft 1.6-3.2 1.7 to 1.9 2.1 to 2.5 1.8 to 2 1.9 to 3.1 2.16
I VVbn/VVbKt (ft/ft) 5-13
Sval (ft/ft) 0.0080 0.0061116 0.0100368 0.007699 0.0063411 0.0065785
Save (fuft) 0.0060 0.005246 0.008357 0.006321 0.005147 0.005246
Sriffle (ft/ft) .01-.014 0.006767 0.010447 0.007965 0.006768
Spool (ft/ft) 0.002899 0.005208 0.004226 0.002757
W Lriffle (ft) 28-75 57.83 88.48 59.4 66.57 68.8
LL L pool (ft) 56-94 37.48 58.7 46.59 51.6 50
0 P to P (ft) 56-188 95.31 147.17 106 118.17 116.66
IL Stiffle/Save ftfft 2.4-2.8 1.290 1.250 1.260 1.315 mm 1.279 -
SpooVSave (ft/ft) 0.553 0.623 0.669 0.536` 0.595
Lriffle/Wbkf ftlft 1.5-4.0 3.213 3.687 2.970 3.698 3.392
ad LpooVWbkf ft/ft 3-5 --2.082 2.44E - 2.330 2.867 2.431
to (ft/ft) 5-7` 5.295 6.131 W 5.300 6.565 5.823-
18
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph, Co., NC
Proposed Channel Profile -o-Proposed Channel Bed
- - Bankfull Elevation
- - • Existing Channel Bed
e
0
m
w
ro
545
544

543
542

541 \
540
539 `
8
53
537
J \ ?
536
535
534
533

532
`
531
530
29 `
5 - -
528
527

526
525
524
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500
Station
Figure 7. Stream Profile.
Constrictor Configuration
Centerline Offset (ft)
-15 -10 -5 0 5
A
14
/,.
-D,
Figure 8. Constrictor Cross Section at Station 12+86 to 13+16.
0
x
- -1 w
CL
a,
0
d
c
-2
V
- -3
- -4
---0 Extended Riffle Bed
mmp 'Constrictor
- - tr - -Upstream Pool
-0 - Tailwater Elevation
10 15
1
19
s
s
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph, Co.. NC
Upper Reach
Centerline Offset (ft)
-15 -10 -5 0 5

Figure 9. Proposed Cross-sections: Sta. 10+00 to12+86.
Middle Reach
Centerline Offset (ft)
-15 -10 -5 0 5
_0
Figure 10. Proposed Cross-sections: Sta. 12+86 to 20+22.
20
0 Riffle Bed
- 43 - Pool Bed
10 15
1
0
x
-1 r
a
d
D
CD
c
-2 t
V
-3
-4
-O -Riffle Bed
- U - Pool Bed
10 15
1
0
-1 r
a
m
m
-2 R
r
-3
-4
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
M
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property. Randolph. Co.. NC
-15
i
Figure 11. Proposed Cross-sections: Sta. 20+22 to 25+52.
Lower Reach -
Centerline Offset (ft)
-15 -10 -5 0 5
Transition Reach
Centerline Offset (ft)
-10 -5 0 5
\
'3
Figure 12. Proposed Cross-sections: Sta. 25+52 to 34+46.
21
- 0 Riffle Bed
- U - Pool Bed
10 15
1
0
-1 L
a
d
0
CD
C
-2 N
L
V
-3

-0 Riffle Bed
- -13 - Pool Bed
10 15
1
0
-1 r
CL
d
0
d
c
-2 R
L
v
-3
-4
i
11
it
it
?I
it
?I
Ile
n?II
it
?I
ti
II?
II I
II .
II,
dl ,
i..
1
STATE OF NORT:H CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM ENFIANCEMi N PROGRAM
RANDOLPH CO UNTY
LOCATION: McCAIN PROPERTY
UN NAMED TRIBUTARY TO BACK CREEK
SOPHIA, NORTH CAROLINA
TYPE OF WORK STREAM RESTORATION
Vl?
?I
?I
?I
?I
?I
a
Q

man non waerr xuwv?
C. 020594001 1 8n
--------------
-------------- -
HEVIS'ONS
SEMI-FINAL DESIGN PLANS
PROJECT LENGTH
GRAPHIC SCALES
-40 -20 0 40 80
"trh"** t
PLANS
-40 -20 0 40 80
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
-4 -2 0 4 8
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
STREAM RESTORATION LENGTH = 2,445 FEET
ShttlS'?,
4&8
PROJECT EYGLSTU
Prepared In Ile Of(Ice Of,
KCI Associates
of North Carolina, P.A.
mmmmmj&? SUITE 220 LANDMARK CENTER 11,4601 SIX FORKS RD.. RALEIGH NO
ENGINEERS -PLANNERS • ECOLOGISTS
PROJECT START DATE.
f
UN COMPACTED BACKFILL 1/3 OF PROPOSED
CHANNEL WIDTH 1/3 OF PROPOSED 1/3 OF PRCPDSED
. CH NFL WIO1H CHANNEL WIDTH

1/3
OF PROPOSED

OF
PROPOSED
I

1/3 OF
N
R

o
1.B•
COMPACTED FLOW ' .
C 4V
NEL CHANNEL
WIDTH
FINISH GRADE ,^5•MIN?
BACKFILL FLOW
FLOW
COMPACTED C? ^-
u
MN 10'TN CK r ?•/ CHANNEL
SEDIMENT CONTO STONE / INVERT I

,

'
----
STONE FOR EROSION CONTROL, %'• -'- V
CLASS I
•'
20..30. aeae' • C

CHANNEL BLOCK
SCALE, NTS

POOL
20'.30•
20•.39• O
V)
i?
t
POOL
`•ti

1/3 OF PROPOSED 1/3 OF PROPOSED 1/3 OF PROPOSED
CHANNEL WIDTH CHANNEL WIDTH CHANNEL YIOTH
P\ FLOW
PLAN VIEW

- a 20..30. 20--
/

\-2.
\-
v"
PoDI

POOL
- PLAN VIEW

., 4J^;
-......
P\ / PI AN VIEW
v } f::Jf

Wit::
3ASEFLOW
:..
...
.
-

r.
,
,
------- FLOW F-
PROPOSED
STREAHBED ELEV
FL 4

FOOTER FOOTER
ROCKS
K' -r h_j ?I I ?f
?
ROCKS
PROFILE VIEW FLOW . Rra
EtEVi 1
L l T
POOL 1 I I

E?ISTIN -I I
TREABES
' V EASEFLCW FDfH ff I

f?l l I I

?J - ? ?

_7

N
PROPOSED GRACE
TOP CF VANE ELEVATION 1
ELEVATION I - I- POOL
F0 C7 ER J i ,n
IBANKFULLI -11 II-III III ROCKS u a a

III III II III= II
k
I?-i II_II? III
l
'
! =
- o N
?_
Vt2
BANKFULL ELEVATION
BT l l -I III
11-L
?I III ?I: 1 ?_
III ll
111
I
l -
,-j
1-III-I?-,1I ?r- ? ?H III I pPLFJLL V IE?,Y '?c
O LEY
s<oPF ? ? i

.. _ PROFILE VIEW a?
o
- o __
FOOTER ROCKS- '?° ?
????
'?IT w
Z

SECTION A -A BED
-n EL
DOUBLE STE
P POOL - CROSS VANE

SINGLE

STEP POOL

CROSS VANE U C
CROSS VANE SCALE- NTS -
SCALE- NTS

SCALE- NTS W
... NOTE- ALL ROCKS OR STONES ARE STONE BOULDERS OR CLASS IT ••. NOTE- ALL ROCKS OR STONES ARE ST ON= BOULDERS OR CLASS Il Lli Z '
... NOTE- ALL ROCKS OR STONES ARE STONE, BOULDERS
? J
U
LLJ O
N
+
U0
l
a
H
-
m
it z
0
0 Z
°
PROPOSED GRADE z
0 H
1/3 TO 112 WIDTH OF \
TOP OF VANE ELEVATION ?- N
\
PROPOSED D CHANNEL \ (BANKFULL) D Q Z 0
/
23-33' 0 0
U 00
BANKFULL ELEVATION ?. N 2 0

ROCK SILL - • -Ir=l??.ul ',
5 TO 107. SLOP
D a
d W 1 +
0
POOL -'
HOOK ROCKS E
" O 2
P m z 0
v
FOOTER ROCKSc Z = y

STREAM BED

J-VANE
ELEVATICN U 0

U)
PLAN VIEW SCALE- NTS SECTION A-A
2
DATE. FEBRUARY, 2t
u 1'=40
•.. NOTE- ALL ROCKS OR STONES IN THE VANE STRUCTURE ARE STONE, BOULDERS
•.. NOTE- GAPS SHOULD BE PLACED ONLY BETWEEN THE HOOK ROCKS
DETAILS
FIGURE 14
SHEET 2 OF B
i
O
P
h
I
-------------------- ------- --- EXISTING THALWEG
TOP OF CHANNEL BANKS
STEP POOL STRUCTURE AT
PROPOSED STREAM CENTERLINE
o
TOP OF PROJECT LIMITS
EXISTING PASTURE FENCE N
r? &

x p
0
1
•
1
1
` 1"
I
O
1,
,
,
•
11
I i
r1 A, ?D
I
°
, i

1 1- 1 `
m c
'I; F6 S
•? o

I
i-
O

I
I ?-
2
'
O
, I

'• l
1
I

n

1
I ?'
I
1
I

p
\
„I
AA
'4 ?.
I
o Oti
C O
G
2?,\
9
W o?
N

SV P ?- ?+bl ?'
•6 ? 1
? ?
S 9 ?
a ?o
q?,
?
Qp, ,

? Till
5
\ ?qC
w
RF w
[{ 5

y W

?
4? w z

.i •r; r ??J A
-.,-- N 0 zi
V W O
!r?? , is{? b !1 ??
STREAM FORD U o
+
(' ?
o
:,, m m a w o
?
y
.
n 0z o
1 n: x
ct) 0 z
x
?Q z 0
I 1 Y. p ?,
' i ' ` f9
. o m S
V) CL +
1
a- or- 0
?
0? z z

0
? 0 Q

?
? a

I?li;•??',
u
'
?
'' ?
?Ib cl)

m
40 -10 0 40 80
F?- z

,
I ri;i 1
,d .?yIF U) CL
V

n;,
1 GRAPHIC SCALE
lir
1 ,-"
Sto oau FEBRUARY, xDS
,

MATCHLINE A-A
MATCHLINEA-A
GRADING
PLAN 1
FIGURE 15
SHEET OF -ul
MATCHLINE A-A

1
1
•lil?fv
I I
I
II ;,
I
I '. I
I , , I
I I
I, ;I
I'
I it
1 '. 1
1
ICI I
1'. 1
II', 1v ,
1.
1., 1
ll'
1'' 1
:v
1
I I ; I
r
;r
II I
QQ- p• la}
2? %pZ St
?o
II •,`, •?V? , DIPCOV'rSTRgCj?
1 I 11 1 1 ` I? ? I I I % ,? i
PT 5 t(1: 2l* 19, 6
1 I: 'III ' I II: i
54-.-
??t' 1 I I I I I I II II II / I
'I'?' 0. 1
S 11 , I I ? i II I I I yp ,' , ?.
\,1 1\ ,, II ? 11 I . ? ? 11 iD, 'II II ; I ? . ? ? / W
1 o
11 !i 'j,l 'll -, :i x 9
1 0.:I I ':I 1' I I"?,'r r I I,1
\\ t II 1 ., ? I I I I, I I I I I I I I 1
I 11 I 1. I I 1 I I I ?? ' ?
I I I I Y
' 1 I I ? I I .I , I I,, :II I
I I1 I 'I I,1, 11: I I ' 1 I ?:' I I
' 1 ' 1 I I 11 I 1 r I' I '? '•' 1 1 ? I'
\ I I I p 11 1'',
I I I I I I 1 I I '?. -' 1
S ? I I I ,,; I.'I,. ''I I., ,I ? ..? \I• 1 11 O O?l??!II .
1- .,; 11? •1 1 11 II I II '1 'I? 1' :AI ? ?`I ?,` 1 11 1. %?}A IA, ,/
1, I I I 1 I , ;, ,„, 1 , tii•JI 1 ,?
I , 1 I I ..•-. ', 1 1 1 1 1 1 p D'.I I
? ? I ,, 11 II 11 11 11 I I I /, j \ Qkn,
I, I , 1, I I I /.
j / Jr " 1 1 I /f'
J I ; 1 / I 1 l1 I 1: ?
'_ 11 r I ' ? I I I 11 11?? 1 I I I I
/ Ir'? ?l I 1 1 I 11 11• .f ,•111 I i III III I 4? ,
r ,- , I 1, I 1 1 1 I' 1 1 a I
, 1 '" 1 I 1 1 1 I I I ? d (' I+f ?? ?? ?O6
: // : 1 •'? I 11 I 1 I 17L 1 `' x??
• l'? I. I I I I I 1 1I I C I I 1!
l 1 1? I I I I I I ?I 1';1 I
' I O J I I 1 r I 1 I N 1 1 '.1 S+ ...1',
I ?o ? I I 1 ? I '1 '•I'.I'..1. 47 ? 1.
I I, , I II I , 11 , 1 1. 1
,l I I 'I I I I 1 I I 1
/ ; , I ? I : I , ', '' ', 14 : ; , •: , , ;;III I','ll:,ll,ll;:::li \ ?'•
., %ii;'?l?;'? ?ii ?!ii!', I, 11 '':?'':'1!,?''', `,\`,`,,1'.tl',t;,i!(f?;?i?r•?•p,?J?',.::,?,;p?''?.1?%•'1h,'i' ?.
i ( i II II v
i i li 'I •, 11 I - I : , ?0? kR c ? '? '
_ / I 1 I , 1 1 I I,
i m
? I :I I I ? •? lrl''
I
m 1
\\\ '' '''I''I ', ', ', 1;:1111,;1 ; i I '. l il' I I ? ?'?`?••
1 , I :'I 7
---------- ----------
I I 1 1 I
1 ', I 1 I I I I I I. I I 1 1 I ',
I 1 1 1 ,„'I i, I I I I ; 1 I
- ---
__ - --'" 111,.1t';I';,:11111: 1 I I I I I I: 1
MATCHLINEB-B
TRIBUTARY TO BE CONNECTED
TO THE PROPOSED CHANNEL
h ..
o
m '
0 \\ 1
,
`Y r 1
'06+I Z
r
r
I
I
I
:
-{S
13? ? J \
1 ?
1 III
1 --
1
1 '\
-40 -20 0 40 BO
GRAPHIC SCALE
I N 1 '

`
• I
v
•
?"'
1`
?? `'
, ?
??
?; ,,,
• 1 I
gyp:
''311', ?•
?, 1 I .••:'?\'\? ??? I II ?• , , "
\\
•,.
•,
,
't
p
•,
\ ,
I , .
,
` ,
1
1 •. \ '.

v n II ;I :i'; i 1: v c
STREAM FORD

a
w
N QZ
U°
NK ra
<a
l C
W
Y
W
W Z
?U 0
o
UW < n
V
UO +
ma z
w O
o Z Q
f-
y
z 0
?0 0 0
_ °a
?N
W W -1 O
4 0 z
aW a
Z F- Q co
UN O
U N

GRADING
PLAN 2
MATCHLINE A-A
S?nOd O ER
-47
11
0
c
z
-C
TRIBUTARY TO BE CONNECTED
TO THE PROPOSED CHANNEL
I
1
". I
TOP OF CHANNEL BANKS
PROPOSED STREAM CENTERLINE
I ('
vs,
i
s
s /
s r ;.
v
1

/
\ 1, 1 1 m l 11 1
1 1 1 11
1V ? A ??',` ? II , 11 1 11
1'I ', I I I 1 '. ,
11 111: 1 ', ; 1 ; i i ,
1 1 N I ',, I II 1 1 ',1
1 1 I 1
1 1 I rr I 1 1
1 \ I N l? 1 , -, ?,1
1 \ I I 1 1
1 I II ', I ? 1 , 1
\\ ? I I I I l 1
I I
1 f II I 1 !/ I I ?,,
1\ 1 II I 1 "1 '? 1 I
, 1 II W I: I II
' AI Il 1 1 ? ICI I? I
V 1 I I I ? I I
t 11 1 1 ? I I1
I
\\? \- I i '' ?` 1 SAS ,
fr
0
?W
--' EXISTING THALWEG
D
D
ID
Nr.
D
n
ID
I
D
D
IID
II
D
,D
D
D
D
DD
3e?i/
D
D
D
ID
D
ID
D
D
D
D
l MATpHLMB B-B
• i 1 I II III ' I I
I I I
I I I 1 ;
'11111%I' 11'• III ?i'I ;'s'J
r
I I'.
;1;'.111! III 'V.l ??•"G
I;
la ;
I
I: I
I I'•
I I I: I% ', 1 I
1 I
\ I
1 I
c.
''I II
II
1
1 1
a
s
I
I
II
1 1 1
111 1 I
I , I I
1 I
I '..I 1 I
I % ' 'I 11 ?'' 11 11
I% 1 I
I '. 1 1 't 1 II
I'. 1 1
1 11 I I
I I I ; 1
11'' ' I 1
?, SS

\ N

,
\1
I,

4

a.
,r.
1
1
1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
? 1
1

P 1
1

I

1

1
\
1
\
1
1
1
11
1
O
?
1

11
1
1

?

?

0 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S ?'
I ' O 1 6
Q
'

I , u
I

1
I
co
?

1
t 2 i
/
l
J t; i
/
o ;
?I o ; r
1
1 j
I ? Ql ?
i
1
I I
I
}1 ?
I
?I
': ; 1
,
I
o
I
I /
? 1.tk

1 J
r, J
I ' I
I \
I
EXIST?N I
l I I
? I
I
ll 1 ?? pI' ,
'
II ? I ll?? 1
?
1
' I A ,'III, 11 1 1,V ,
I
O
%
if 1;: 1 •' I
I , 1, I I 1.' ':''ll
I. :I' rU1!: it lii li.I,I• !1?1r, 1111'.
1 1 'I ?I I?:' I I 'I s
I I I I 'hl 1 .I 1.
I I
I %1 I I'. 1 I I I
I I I {1 I I% I I I.;I I
' ' ' '.1 I I I 1'';I I
I I 1. I I I'', 1 1 ', 1 I
I,1 1
I' '1 1 ' I I I 1 1 : 1 I
} I , I I 1 ? I I
I 1''
l
I 1
I I
I,
I• I
111r I'
?i 1111,;'; •;; 11I1•II(ill', i'lllllu l?l I 1 ?, Iii
Im.;l,ll?!r'ii'i;lr°,;ii ?,, '•,1!;;:I!II:1:1;'l?;''. •I'ij
1111 : I
111; 1;n;•; ', 1;? :.0: %il%%,'? ,, 1,:I'.
111;1%ih:111„ l1 •1w;•.h:;'I%'-•1 ', 'I %
' ? ' : u1;;.1; '11111'1 1 1 ii1/riirw.,•JO.; :.I 'I;
illrlul:;?r% 111!..:1./:;L;
j
1111/1? 1:,,'1f IIy! I?
:.
U:11.'1/11; J11 r: 1::1%11:ri1 :l.; i
/• 1; 1. 11 1f 111; 11:; ..
11:1. I'..11/;.1111;;;'
' l 1 ; / l , ' 1 I ; 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' / ' ; 11 11. ; ' I ' ' , 1 1 1 l ; '
;?/Y l'?; 1;';'% l?,1 ;';'/r'11'1?1'll'11 ;'.'% /'.'.'.'%?'tti'/ 11 ;:' I ''.?., ?.1 /. ?. •I.? ?.
I
I
I
/
1
/
r
r
I
I
1
30`?I
III I I '. I I \
I'
I
\` Ir
:I.
l \
1 `, I
11'•
' I l
I:
1.
I:
A \l 1%
k 1 \ \ \
? k 1 ? I I..V
n \1 IIFhl 11 V
1 0
l' +e A
kS ? D
I ?{
Y h? Mid
y' m>
c
Z
D
A
GRADE CONTROL CROSS VANE
AT BOTTOM OF PROJECT LIMITS
r 540.,
i, 1r I I.
rll ,,'v'', I I.
1 1 1 1 1 I I l
V 1,1 II I'
,. O'' I! Il 11l
1
I'
I
I%
11' I .'I ;l: 11:
r1
I 1'`
r:
\t ,
l l if li ?I :r I:r: :1
1 1: 11
.l'
I
l: 1: :l l 11j :I
;1 I :11 11J :I
11 :l: 11 ,I
:I: l 1: ,'I: 111
1, 1 1'. I I I'.
II I; I N %I III
II
MATCHLINE B-B
N
Z
O
6 w
tllll
\ 1v
--- - ------- ---
EXISTING THALWEG
TOP OF CHANNEL BANKS
u i W aN
U? • yo
a
x? p c
o?
a Z F
W C
------ -- ----- ------ ---
' g
I Il I,
, I; II; m --
'I
I I J:
r ``1
I%
r'
I 5)5-__
n.
m
i
fS i 1 1
11:
PROPOSED STREAM CENTERLINE
-40 -20 0 40 80
GRAPHIC SCALE
Y
W
LU z
?U Z3
W O
V of a
m a 1- Z
tr O
O o Z Q
Q Z 0
1
o O o
? o
ww -j o
a
02 °Z o
aW Q
Z? Q m
UU) 0
cU N
L
mrz, FEBRUARY, 2M5
muu 1'=IJ
GRADING
PLAN 3
FIGURE 17

P
h
I
I
I,
%
I1:
z
Z
EXISTING PASTURE FENCE
11 ?a i pA0 ?? ? ?
1 1 1 O JI '?•1e /
', 11 , ?; ; , ? , '1 1 ? ' ' ! {? o • I TOP OF CHANNEL BANKS
' .111• '', 11 ?.' ? ,.? ? ? ;?1 ` ? I
PROPOSED STREAM CENTERLINE
II 11 T; ? l / 1 II
I I' I I? it ' / -: I
CHANNEL BANK PLANTINGS
III', 1 eo? .o'.•<o'.
a 1•" tl .' I /? I -
\X/\\ WOODED FLOODPLAIN PLANTINGS
\ o v \ , `. ` . :: AN
GRASSED FLOODPLAIN PLANTINGS v:
-------------
S?aOQP 11 .? ?°' ???\a\ a No
o \ u
JYy - I `? _ O
LLJ
0: zi
Q
,'-
b' / / my m0_ K 0
l;
U) c3
i r° /, 190\ e'.'. \ W W J o
o
n.cl:
-40 -20 0 40 80 0 0
I I I 'I ?' . I I 1
1, 'I. ??\ °?.• as
W N
1
XGRAPHIC SCALE F- x
r•I:;, o ;??, Q a
?'';I;q' , \ \ \a d' U O
0 U)
a'
o•TC FEBRUARY, 2DO5
1 o• r6 ?? 1•=/p
MATCHLINEA-A MATCHLINEA-A LANDSCAPE
PLAN 1
FIGURE 18
SHEET OF
MATCHLINEA-A` ?I
? 1 1 1
I + I 1 A
II I 1 1
1 1 1 J
I 1 1
I
I I I
I I
I,
O 1
h
I I '
_`.•A''+ r?11: I_ .Ka:'L1NE1 1 ,.?,rnRWbOR
v ``?UI r"`. • TRUGT?ON'IAG?F', - !
1 1• , Al I% I
II' II. ? 1;• 111'•,• 1 I? _. I :I I ? i
t 11 1? 11 1 It ? fI I : I 1 1 !
1 1 1 1 ;\ I I I . I I
. 1 ? 1 I
1V:;. 1 11 1 ?',V? , I I I I I
11 III I:.1I I I I -
,?.?? 1 , 1 I 1 I I I I I
1 ''. 11 , AI ? I ? II I I I 1 ! ??
• 1 1 II• I I I I I I
Id` •` 1 1 1 1 I I j o I I I l l q
•` 1 I "' I ? , I I I' I ?
11 `I I 1 . I ? ? ?'I I II II ' I //
II I 11 I ". 'I? I I, I, II O I, O II,
1 I ,I ; I' I I I 'I I. I
1,1 ?..1\, II I , I I \
I I
•' 1 l LD ', I I I I I ', I I? I N' I I ; I
\\\'. i II :1 i II I I II I •. II I I j ??
?• 1 I I I I ', II i j'. II, II I 1 .1 ? I
I I I I I' I I I I 1 I •'I 'I' I
1 I I I ?: l I I I I I. ' 1' I I I I
• I 1 ? ? ' '. I I 'I 1 I I ? ? I \ •II ? .
j ? I I I I 'I I m I 11 I; 1 \; ,11 1 O O
I I : I I I ? ,., ' 1 I
l I 1 I, 1 O
is I I : I I '.1 I I I I _. '1 1 1 S _?.
\\\I ':: 1 ? ? • I ' ? I I I 1 '. I 11 •?. 11 ? ? ' ,?? 11 1 ', 11 '1 11 ? ? d.
- I ? Il I II ? II II 1, ;I .,`•' 1 1 •,1 1 1 •.l
I I l I I 1 1.. ?.-• 1 11 .11. I 11 1 I
.- I ! 1 1 , 1 1 I I I
I 11 1 1, 1 1 I I .: I I
' ??I' I I / I 1 1 1 1 1,?1 I I'll 1.
I ! I I 1s 1 '' 1 1 1 I I' I
% i 1 ? i 11 ? ?10 11? ? X11 LL 1 I I'. ',I ?/
/ b I I l ', 1 ? f', 1 1 I
r rr I 11 '1 S 11 uJ II
_ r l I o I I 1 1 s Ic0 1 1 1 1 I \.
' I r ! I' I I? 1 1 1 I I I rl `?
' i? ' 1 i1 f i I i I • 1 11 .' QL I d 'i."p. ?.i•I
?% I • I 1 I I I I I I? I N II: I
r I 1 I ,1 , r?, a 1?1 J
% I • I I, I I I ,!% I I 1 1 1 I ,, , / I li
' I I I I l I •! I I I 1 1 1 '`I
I l 1 1 I I 1 I N I 111
!% 'n ? I I I I I I I' tl'.; I ?I %l ?l I I', I ; :%;/ I 1 1.1111
I
• r? ?';/? %; ' I I I I I I I i t r I I I 1 /
r il,, l I I I : l I / I I III \,
• r/' I 1 I I I I I I I 1
?? %%;; I ; , 'I I O •' 1'' ,1111 '. •???/;• ?,; '1 11'1. ,'.1
I:
1, 1
• ! 1
I
I l I 1 \ 1 j ,I ? I :. ?
1 I I I \I ?? 1 `.i I ! I
, 1 1 I I? j I 1
l i I I 'I II I ', ! i" % i
I I ''. I J ' I
/ I I r v I II '. I ?
! 1 I
I I 1 II I l I I'
' I I I 1 I f I
! p , I I I I
-! II I I I 1 %?,
/ 1'. I "I ?I I .O I' h
I I I 1 I I N I I
.._ 1. Il ?`;{I;Il ll{,I,IIII111, { I
--'--........- -"''-'? n , ''., ?, ,, ., 1• ..,III III, ? I ': •I '.
I?I
.'....I ;I',Il'':,l l • : l' i i i
- 1 I 11 I I 1 I I
•.• -- -- 11 1, I I: I I I I
I ,
I I I l
- ---- -------
, "I
11 1 I 1
- I .. I' 1 1 I I I I I
--- ------- ---- ---- --------
MATCHLINE B-B '... . it i ! j
m
of 1; r
m F'•.?%!'' l MATCHLINEA-A
1N
lZY)771 I
? W
STREAM FORD €
. a
0 1 or. _ _ o
! o? 1
TRIBUTARY TO BE CONNECTED
TO THE PROPOSED CHANNEL
TOP OF CHANNEL BANKS
//
PROPOSED STREAM CENTERLINE
/ Y.J.
ri o ,
CHANNEL BANK PLANTINGS 4-
1 ''G:'•i oo'. ?f-.-
-:? I op.a .•o?.e .o0•a ??
rl of \ ?\?? 1\ 1'1 /'// Rl i . o . o o . o r
I I I I n'I
? . y: WOODED FLOODPLAIN PLANTINGS
1
1 I 1 L\\\L\\\?\l U oz
? a
,• \ \ l 111. II '.I I ';? ? . ¢?
'`o ?\\ \\ \ 1 \1\ ? o ?•, ? , ". I?? ' fem.-. ... :..•.... ..-? L ,o w ya
,c
V?,A v 1 , GRASSED FLOODPLAINPLANTINGS
/e /o i
s _
\ , 1r I '? I I I c
I I 1' ? .I I '.I
11 11 1 I I : I I ; I W
? \ 11 I ? ? ? I ', I 1
.,o \ 11 \,,,, 1\ I ? 1 1 s
-40 -20 0 40 80 W Q
a_u F- -
I
1
U
0
r 4
U
r
GRAPHIC SCALE Y ? a +
n
0
o°O 0 0 0 •?}
N _
LL
Q
F Z
m (L T'.
.o .. t?\ 0
a
P
O z
F
N
/ Sys ?, \\ ?\\I,,,
J O
/ Z
!1
-- ----- --- ---
v'• } 0 0
-------------
.I t
v,
I 1
• 1
' .. .. ..... ............
fib
1 CL <
Hwy
\ \ Z mL Q
I V/
.1
I
ol, I
I'.
I
I
?I \ t a • / .. Qom. , Z I I II ', I \ : '. \ '`•, •, \ orrz FEBRUARY, 2005
b??.. ?n„? vv ?dQ'•t `v ut 1•=401
I 4 b d :,', ll '. 1' a 01-? I I I .. ', 1 I I I I A •. A •. A
ti I
,MA7L? NLIN? $-8 LANDSCAPE
o s 11 \? o,?o-??,.?'b ', 'I 'I ,l'I, ; ",?i \\ \\``,,•'•\\`• \ •.
PLAN 2
TRIBUTARY TO BE CONNECTED
TO THE PROPOSED CHANNEL
STREAM FORD
FIGURE 19
T-7 T I f
I
MI I M
MATCHLINEB-13 ATCHLINE B-B
------------ ---
- ---------- ------ -- -
------------------- ------------------- --
fill; t:
0
00\\ \ \
1.
ff 0 i
11
f if
it it:
to
if
i I If I
LL, f f
0 iII
1AN :117// /
..111
........ IIi
I Q1
O
O
III ' � � \\Il�\�\\i�°OO^% ° / 'I !�': I IIS
tttt
C-)
f,z
//////• Qh \
LIJ
U-
C)
" ! / I
i
ia %% / / p \ \ \ \\ \ /(Aj7 r
II 0-f ; / /Ott � • � ///,/ / �: i � �, .. I; I ( '� /1♦ r�`Y�
------ TOP OF CHANNEL BANKS
0-4
11 I''''11'''','1\'', '',I ,'ll'.' 1 i o, �/� •'�-\ ------- ------- PROPOSED STREAM CENTERLINE
01'
t
/IV X�r
STV lk
I'1W 1
CHANNEL BANK PLANTINGS � /�� ' b OE
WOODED FLOODPLAIN PLANTINGS
LU
LU
W 0
LU
0 to
0 A
if< t GRASSED FLOODPLAIN PLANTINGS cr- F- z
a.
ctf 0
it
.............. 0 z 0 p
0 z
- ------------
it ---- ---------- U)
>
0
0 C3
cn
LLJ
a- cf- 0
0 z
f
0
<
W
(n
0 <
U) (L
>U 0
—40 —20 0 40 80 v En
0
ou
P? rn GRAPHIC SCALE FEBRUARY, 2305
m
1-40'
PLANTING
PLAN 3
FIGURE 20
SHEET 8 OF 8

• Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property. Randolph. Co.. NC

7.0 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
A stable channel is able to move the sediment supplied by its watershed without aggrading or degrading. This
ability is evaluated through two parameters: competency and capacity. Competency is the channel's ability to
move particles of a certain size, expressed as units of Pascals (Pa) or lbs/ft2. Capacity is the channel's ability
to move a specific volume of sediment (sediment discharge). Sediment discharge is the amount of sediment
moving through a cross section over a specified period of time, expressed in dimensionless parameters or as
. mass or weight units of kg/sec or lbs/sec.
7.1 Competency
•
Whenever there is any stream flow, there will always be sediment movement. However, there is a threshold
level of bedload sediment movement that will result in a noticeable change in the channel bed. The flow
associated with this threshold movement is the reference condition that all sediment transport models are
. based upon. In natural streambeds there are particles of a wide range of sizes. At low, but significant flow
levels, only the smallest particles will be moving, with the larger particles resisting the flow of the stream.
This is the condition of partial sediment transport. As the stream flow increases, eventually every particle on
. the streambed will show threshold movement, this is the condition of full sediment transport.
Some streams will routinely reach full sediment transport, such as sand streams, and models such as Ackers &
White (1973) are used for these conditions. Some streams will rarely move even the median size particle on
the bed (D50), such as cobble-boulder streams, and models such as Andrews (1983, 1994) are used for these
conditions. There is a wide range of sand-gravel-cobble streams that have the flow conditions necessary to
. significantly move particles greater than the D50, but do not reach the full sediment transport condition. This
condition is present at the stream channel on the McCain property, and the model used was Wilcock-Crowe
(2003), which is actually a "sediment capacity" model (see next section). However, a capacity model must
- contain an entrainment predictor.
Entrainment is the condition that initiates the movement of a selected particle size in the presence of a mix
S grade channel bed. If the largest particle that moves during a bankfull event can be identified, then the flow
conditions that produced this movement can be determined and this flow condition (the channel competency)
is used in the design of the restored stream channel. The preferred method of determining this particle size
- and flow condition is by direct measurement. However, to stand in a stream channel at bankfull flow with
both a flow meter and a sediment sampler is both difficult and extremely unlikely in remote locations.
However, a rain gage and stream gages can be installed to measure the stream channel's response to rain
- events and, in the channel bed, scour chains installed to measure the depth of scour during these events. The
- bed material above the scour chain can be collected and sieved to determine the material sizes in transport for
a known recorded flow event.
s
• The indirect scour chain method was attempted at the McCain site. In addition, the channel was sampled by
the pebble count method at several sites for trend analysis and at one scour chain site, the surface and
subsurface sediment samples were sieved to compare to the scour chain data. However, the UTBC stream bed
- has been compacted by cattle and after months of observations, the scour chains never recorded a sediment
transport event. Another four sites were sampled for surface and subsurface sediment gradation, including the
second scour chain site. Two bar locations were also sampled with the intent of conducting detailed analysis
- of the sediment data to determine if a design shear stress could be calculat, "_om the Wilcock-Crowe (2003)
models.
s
- There are two ways to model streams; first to consider only the largest particle observed in motion (Andrews,
1983) and second to consider all of the bed material observed to be in motion (Andrews, 1994). If the stream
- 30
• Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property. Randolph, Co., NC
channel has a bed of sediment in balance with its flow, then there should be a natural armour layer on the
surface, with the subsurface an indication on the annual bedload. An attempt to find a sediment transport
balance between the entire surface and subsurface samples was futile. The surface and subsurface had been
mixed by the cattle too much to have this balance condition represented in the samples. There was also an
attempt to determine if the subsurface could predict the surface D50 (and vice versa), which produced
encouraging results at two locations. The largest particles found in the surface and subsurface samples were
compared to the gradation of the surface samples. This did not produce useful results as the mixing by the
cattle had driven large particles into the subsurface (and small particles into the surface that washed away).
• The assumption that the subsurface could be an indicator of annual sediment transport was not viable,
however a second assumption of balanced streams is that a point bar sample at the so called "1/3, 1/3"
location could be an indicator of annual sediment transport. The upstream bar proved to be the wrong kind
. and the downstream point bar at scour chain site #2 showed a good result when compared to the surface
sample at that location. This result compared well to the best of the subsurface modeling. The location of
. this sediment sample was also well placed for use in the stream restoration design. Scour chain site #2 was
. well away from the channery deposit at the top end of the site. The surface material in the channel could then
represent the gravel layer where the relocated stream channel would be placed.
. This model produced an average shear stress condition that would be used in stream design to move the
largest particles expected to be in the sediment transport over the expected gradation of the stream channel.
This shear stress can be used for the design riffle cross-sections and channel gradient in the various project
. reaches using the equation:
ti = yRs
• Where: T = shear stress (lbs/ft2)
y = specific gravity of water (62.41bs/ft)
. R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = average water slope (ft/ft)
The target shear stress value (converted to a shear-velocity) for the design cross-sections is u* = 0.156 m/s.
Supporting sediment transport calculations and rating curves are provided in Appendix F.
. 7.2 Capacity
A sediment transport capacity analysis was not conducted because the reach on the McCain property is a
transport reach. Transport reaches are supply limited and will flush their beds at the end of storms. A
realistic sediment transport model cannot be based on a flushed channel bed. The flushed bed cannot predict
the movement of the fine materials that make up the bulk of the bedload sediment transport.

8.0 FLOODING ANALYSIS
The Un-named Tributary to Back Creek (UTBC) in Randolph County is not located in a Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Detailed Flood Study Zone. It is the intent of the restoration design to
maintain the 100-r.:c, 1ood elevation at or below the current stages following restoration.
The conversion of an existing, incised stream system to a more open and natural meandering stream will
normally reduce flood stages along the project reach. At the downstream end of the project, the stream
31
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph, Co., NC

encounters the floodplain of Back Creek approximately a mile above the Back Creek Lake reservoir. It is not
likely that the existing UTBC has any effect on the 100-yr flood stage at this location.

9.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
•
Monitoring shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability and riparian/stream bank vegetation
survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established restoration objectives.
. Specifically, project success will be assessed utilizing measurements of stream dimension, pattern, and
. profile, site photographs, and vegetation sampling.
. 9.1 Duration
The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted at the end of the first full growing following project
. completion. Monitoring shall subsequently be conducted annually for a total period of five (5) years.
9.2 Reporting

i Monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted after all monitoring tasks for each monitoring event are
completed. Each report will provide the new monitoring data and compare the new data against previous
findings. Data tables, cross sections, profiles, photographs and other graphics will be included in the report as
. necessary. Each report will include a discussion of any significant deviations from the as-built survey and
previous annual measurements, as well as evaluations as to whether the changes indicate a stabilizing or de-
stabilizing condition.
e
9.3 Stream Stability
•
- The purpose of monitoring is to evaluate the stability of the restored stream. Following the procedures
established in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites (Harrelson, et.al, 1994) and
• the methodologies utilized in the Rosgen stream assessment and classification system (Rosgen, 1994 and
. 1996), data collected will consist of detailed dimension and pattern measurements, a longitudinal profile, and
bed materials sampling. Width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, low bank height ratio, sinuosity, meander
• width ratio, radius of curvature (on newly constructed meanders during 1st year monitoring only), pool-to-
pool spacing as well as the average, riffle and pool water slopes will be calculated from the collected data.
• Pebble count data will be plotted by size distribution in order to assess the D50 and D84 size class.
• 9.3.1 Dimension
• Four permanent cross-sections, two riffle and two pool, will be established and used to evaluate stream
dimension. At least one riffle and one pool cross-section will be located within the area also surveyed as part
• of the longitudinal profile. Permanent monuments will be established by either conventional survey or GPS.
• The cross-section surveys shall provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks, to include points on
the adjacent floodplain, at the top of bank, bankfull, at all breaks in slope, the edge of water, and thalweg.
• Subsequently, width/depth ratios, entrenchment ratios and bank height ratios will be calculated for each cross-
section.
• Cross-section measurements should show little change from the as-built cross-sections. If changes do occur,
• they will be evaluated to determine whether they are minor adjustments associated with settlin _.J increased
stability or whether they indicate movement toward an unstable condition.
•
•
e
•
32
•

Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property. Randolph. Co.. NC
9.3.2 Pattern
Measurements associated with the restored channel pattern will include belt width, meander length, and radius
of curvature (on newly constructed meanders only for the first year). Subsequently, sinuosity, meander width
ratio and radius of curvature and meander length/bankfull width ratios will be calculated.
9.3.3 Profile
A longitudinal profile of a representative reach of the restored channel will be surveyed. The profile will
extend a minimum of 20 bankfull widths. Measurements will include slopes (average, pool, riffle), as well as
calculations of pool-to-pool spacing. Annual measurements should indicate stable bedform features with little
change from the as-built survey. The pools should maintain their depth with lower water surface slopes,
while the riffles should remain shallower and steeper.
9.3.4 Bed Materials
Pebble counts will be conducted at each riffle cross-section, as well as across the overall study reach (based
upon percentage of riffles and pools) for the purpose of classification and to evaluate sediment transport.
9.4 Photograph Reference Points
Photograph reference points (PRP's) will be established to assist in characterizing the site and to allow
qualitative evaluation of the site conditions. The location of each photo point will be permanently marked in
the field and the bearing/orientation documented to allow for repeated use.
9.4.1 Cross-section Photograph Reference Points
Four (4) photographs will be taken at each permanent cross section, as follows: 1) from the left bank
permanent monument/pin showing the right bank, 2) from the right bank permanent monument/pin showing
the left bank, 3) from downstream of the cross-section looking upstream, and 4) from upstream of the cross-
section looking downstream. The survey tape will be centered in each photograph and the water line will be
located near the lower edge. Effort will be made to consistently show the same area in each photograph.
9.4.2 Longitudinal Photograph Reference Points
Ten (10) permanent points will be established longitudinally throughout the project site to allow further
photo-documentation of the restored stream channel condition.
9.4.3 Additional Photograph Locations
Additional PRP's will be located, as needed, to document the condition of specific in-stream structures such
as J-vanes and cross vanes, as well as infrastructure associated with the stream such as utility and road
crossings.
9.5 Bank and Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
Bank and Riparian Vegetation monitoring shall follow the EEP Vegetation Monitoring Protocol, which will
be accepted and approved before construction of this project begins.
33
Stream Restoration Plan McCain Property, Randolph. Co.. NC
REFERENCES
Ackers, P. and W.R. White. 1973. Sediment transport: new approach and analysis. Journal of the Hydraulics
Division, ASCE, Volume 99, Number HY11, pp. 2041-2060.
Andrews, E.D. (1983) "Entrainment of Gravel from Natural Sorted Riverbed Material," Geological Society of
America Bulletin 94, 1225-1231.
Andrews, E.D. (1994) "Marginal Bedload Transport in a Gravel-Bed Stream Channel, Sagehen Creek,
California," Water Resources Research, 30 Q 2241-2250.
Doll, B.A., D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E. Smith, and J. Spooner.
2002. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout the Piedmont of North
Carolina. JAWRA, Volume 38, Number 3, pp. 641-651.
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. General Technical Report RM-245. USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
NCDENR. 2001. "Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration." Division of Water Quality, Wetlands
Restoration Program, Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2001. "Interim, Internal Technical Guide: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for
Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects." Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Unit, Raleigh,
NC.
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classification for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality Section
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies). September 2002.
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. In: Wang, S.S.Y., E.J.
Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Management of
Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12-22.
Rosgen, D.L. 1998. The Reference Reach - a Blueprint for Natural Channel Design. Proceedings of the
Wetland Engineering and River Restoration Conference, Denver, CO, ASCE.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. "Natural Channel Design Methodology (40 Steps)." Natural Channel Design and River
Restoration Short Course, Pagosa Springs, CO - October 2001.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3`a
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, NCDEHNR, Division of Parks and
Recreation. Raleigh, NC.
Schlindwein, P.A. (2004) "Evolution of Piedmont Floodplains and Stream Channels: Implication for Urban
Stream Restoration," Proceeding of the World Water Resources Congress, Salt Lake City, UT,
EWRI/ASCE
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in distributed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms. 14(1): 11-26.
USDA. 1971. Soil Survey for Durham County, North Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Wilcock, P.R. and Crowe, J.C. (2003). "Surface-Based Transport Model for Mixed-Size Sediment", Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 129(2), pp 120-128.
34
1. Applicant Information:
Preparer/C'o/mpany l(?? /Address: y?0/ S?>< toc/cs R?l. sfe. ZZJr;,??NC z76oq
Phon Fax/E-mail: 9/9-X83~q2/?(
II. Site Information: (Attach copy of USGS map or photocopy of quad on reverse: include I and 2 mile radius around site)
Wetland Restoration Stream Restoration, Applicant's Identification #
Other.
Address: Z5r1Z 14ke- Lvices JU. 5,pLk?A1C_ 7.7350
County: x-.6121 e k Quad Name: 1 4.,xe-Man
111. Identification of Historic Properties:
List sites by site number and Status: NR = National Register listed; SL = Study List; DOE = Determination of
Eligibility; LID = Local Designation; UA = Unassessed
Archeology
# of recorded sites in immediate area of site: 0
IV. Additional Information or investigation needed:
, Pj-?vr`d' urft roil,
lam
'? ?urvev
Testing of sites
-Photo Reconnaissance
-Balloon Test
Recommended by or on: ALL{ ??,z +?- Recommended by or on:
(Office of State Archaeology) (Survey & Planning Branch)
V. Recommendations/Final Determination:
-Recommendations for additional work are shown above.
I
`- The proposed restoration site wflt"" affect historic properties in the area of potential effect.
Date
Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coo i for
Review Form
Potential Restoration Sites
Architecture
# of recorded sites within 1 mile radius
'Mp OP
December 2001
•
A
• ; NCD
ENR

• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• Division of Parks and Recreation
i Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Philip K- McK,-ielly, Director

i May 21, 2003
•
i Ms. Kimberly A. Nimmer
• KCI Engineers
• Landmark Center I, Suite 200
4601 Six Forks Road
i Raleigh, NC 27609
•
• Subject: Stream Restoration Site in Randolph County
KCI Job r: 1202084E

• Dear Ms. Nimmer:
i The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities. or
• priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do not
i show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area,- it does not necessarily mean
that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of
i Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if
i the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or
i priority natural areas.
• j You may wish to check-the Natural Heritage Program database website at
• <www.ncsparks.neinhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919--7-1-5-S687 if you have questions or need further information.
i
•
Sincerely,

i
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
• Natural Heritage Program
e
. HEL/hel
e
e
e !
e _ MU;' Nor-..,

e
e

Appendix B
McCain Site, Randolph Co
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Critical Habitats in Randolph County, NC
NCDENR-Natural Heritage Program
Major Group Scientific Name Common Name State Federal State Global
Status Status Rank Rank
Mammal Condylura cristata Star-nosed Mole Sc NA S2 G5T2Q
popl - Coastal Plain
population
Reptile Crotalus horridus Timber SC NA S3 G4
Rattlesnake
Amphibian Hemidactylium Four-toed Sc NA S3 G5
scutatum salamander
Fish Notropis Cape Fear E E S1 G1
Mekistocholas Shiner
Mollusk Alasmidonta undulata Triangle Floater T NA S2 G4
Mollusk Alasmidonta varicose Brook Floater E FSC S l G3
Mollusk Fusconaia masom Atlantic Pi toe E FSC S I G2
Mollusk Lampsilis cariosa Yellow E FSC S1 G3G4
Lam mussel
Mollusk Lampsilis radiata Carolina T NA S1? G5T2Q
cons icua Fatmucket
Mollusk Stro hitus undulates S uawfoot T NA S2S3 G5
Mollusk Toxolasma pullus Savannah E FSC S I G2
Lilli ut
Mollusk Villosa constricta Notched SC NA S3 G3
Rainbow
Mollusk Villosa delumbis Eastern SR NA S3 G4
Creekshell
Mollusk Villosa vaughaniana Carolina E FSC S2 G2
Creekshell
Crustacean Cambarus catagius Greensboro SC NA S2 G3
Burrowing
Crayfish
Insect Gomphus abbreviatus Spine-crowned SR NA S3? G3G4
Clubtail
Vascular Plant Amorpha schwerinii Piedmont SR-T NA S3 G3
Indigo-bush
Vascular Plant Aster eor ianus Georgia Aster T C S2 G2G3
Vascular Plant Berberis canadensis American SR-T NA S2 G3
Barberry
Vascular Plant Cardamine dissecta Dissected SR-P NA S2 G4?
Toothwort
Vascular Plant Helianthus Schweinitz's E E S2 G2
schweinitzii Sunflower
Vascular Plant Hexalectris spicata Crested SR-P NA S2 G5
Coralroot
Vascular Plant Ruellia purshiana Pursh's Wild- SR-0 NA S2 G3?
petunia
3
Appendix B
McCain Site, Randolph Co
Vascular Plant Schoenoplectus Canby's SR-P NA S3 G3G4
etuberculatus Bulrush
Natural Basic Mesic Forest NA NA NA S2 G5T3
Community Piedmont Subtype)
Natural Basic Oak-Hickory NA NA NA S3 G4
Community Forest
Natural Dry Oak-Hickory NA NA NA S4 G5
Community Forest
Natural Dry-Mesic Oak- NA NA NA S5 G5
Community Hickory Forest
Natural Floodplain Pool NA NA NA S2 G3?
Community
Natural Low Elevation Seep NA NA NA S3 G4?
Community
Natural Mesic Mixed NA NA NA S4 G5T5
Community Hardwood Forest
Piedmont Subtype)
Natural Piedmont Monadnock NA NA NA S4 G5
Community
Natural Piedmont/Coastal NA NA NA S2? G4
Community Plain Acidic Cliff
Natural Piedmont/Coastal NA NA NA S3 G4?
Community Plan Heath Bluff
Natural Piedmont/Low NA NA NA S5 G5
Community Mountain Alluvial
Forest
Natural Rocky Bar and Shore NA NA NA S5 G5
Community
Natural Upland Depression NA NA NA S2 G3
Community Swam Forest
Natural Upland Pool NA NA NA Sl G1
Community
Natural Xeric Hardpan Forest NA NA NA S3 G3G4
Communi
State Status:
SC- Special Concern
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
SR- Significantly Rare
-T - Throughout
-P - Peripheral
-0- Other
Federal Status:
E - Endangered
FSC - Federal "Species of Concern"
C - Candidate
4
Appendix B
McCain Site, Randolph Co
State Rank:
S 1 - Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to
extirpation in the state.
S2- Imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extirpation in the state.
S3- Rare or uncommon in North Carolina.
S4- Apparently secure in North Carolina, with many occurrences.
S5- Demonstrably secure in North Carolina and essentially ineradicable under present conditions.
S? - Unranked, or rank uncertain.
Global Rank:
G1 - Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction
throughout its range.
G2 - Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G3 - Either very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area.
G4 - Apparently secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the
periphery).
G5 - Demonstrably secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the
periphery).
G? - Unranked, or rank uncertain.
G_T_ - Status of subspecies or variety; the G-rank refers to the species as a whole, the T-rank
to the subspecies.
5
W
e
0
0
e
•
•
•
•
s
s
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
4
3°s-- :+L ?` , -ri F T` ?i f e ? T--a.
\+ _ _ ? }..?? -i 1 ?t ' ? tM fir 4 _ _ _
Yi..
Photograph 1 - View of UTBC prior to entering project site, looking upstream from Station 10+00 across the
McCain property boundary.
t ,
A?W

Photograph 2 - View looking upstream at top of project site. Logs in stream in upper right of photo mark
station 10+00. Scour along the right bank is predominantly into weathered bedrock.
2
i
i
i
•
i
i
i
i
•
•
i
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
Photograph 4 - View downstream at Cross-section 1.
3
Photograph 3 - Weathered bedrock along right bank and in UTBC streambed (Station 10+20 to 10+35).

Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County

mod'.
4
F t '"4

5 - Barbed wire fence crossing stream that has caused a debris jam.
? I - WNF-i?_
t Q.a
1

J
1

f

? w? zJr
? fi
e
_ a!
__ - ? - _. _ i?? ?!r ? Try
Phoio-taph 6 - View downstream at Cross-section 2.
4
0
s
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
.?„
apm
i4l
w?-
t
Photograph 7 - Undercut left bank at Cross-section 2, top of bank overhangs -2.3 feet.
rnotograpn Z5 - view looking aownstream of commence witn small unnamea trtnutary, entering from tower
right in photo (Station 13+25 - 13+50).
5
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
6
Photograph 9 - View looking downstream below confluence of tributary with UTBC. Bedrock along right
bank and in stream, steep bank above bedrock on right bank (Station 13+50 to 14+00).
Photograph 10 - View looking downstream, meander pattern of UTBC is visible in the lower right of the
photo, moving to the left. Steep, eroding banks occur on the outside meander bank with bar formation on the
inside bank
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County

Photograph 11 - Looking downstream at debris jam across UTBC channel, right bank undercut with exposed
roots upstream of jam (Station -15+50).
-s .L.r?^+ ..-fir.-e.,?'_' '..{?. I??•rr
Loins T5,
06-
AA,
Photograph 12 - High-traffic cattle crossing, with boulders along the left bank and in the stream channel
(Station -16+15).
7
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
•
w
w
w
•
•
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
44
Photograph 13 - Boulder/cobble bar along steep right bank, cattle access in right foreground; small sod island
with two small trees near left bank.

3, E
rig

1
NQ1
` •*
_
d
_
a..?7'' r?
,
•?? s ..?
sl
-M 7-
Photograph 14 - View downstream toward power line easement, upstream of bend to the right in. U 1 BC:.
8
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
•
w
w
•
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
Appendix C McCain Site, Randolph County

> _ ?fr?
p
p ?. .4 +
'k
_
? . a

ILI

%

MW 4?z

Z
_
.
" a mss: _`` r? -
PIIOtOl _'I llh?) 15 - 01111UCMI C OI TT-I V? Ith I TB(' Lilo , icti h?ui (Station -19+50). Note trallsversc
boulder/cobble bar extending across channel upstream of confluence. Fence marking property boundary is
visible along top of photo.
rnotograpn 1 o - Heaacut along 1 no z at property uounaary, approximately --)u teet upstream trom commence
with UTBC.
9
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County

Tom.

41+_4 ?
3
4
}ei ?t +F'yc. ?
.54
Photograph 17 - View upstream from Station 20+25. Note large gravel and cobble bar along Lett banK. steep
right bank in foreground-, further upstream right bank has been worn down from cattle access.

10
Photograph 18 - Cattle crossing at near Station 20+50. Cobbles and boulders in stream channel, possibly
placed to help stabilize crossing. Banks flattened from cattle access, increasing channel width/depth ratio.
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
a
71
Photograph 20 -Sinkholes in right bank extending approximately 30 feet from top of bank, possibly
associated w`th dr......,e tile (Station -21+00).
Photograph 19 - Ceramic drainage tile about four inches in diameter at base of right bank (Station -21+00).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
?rz

Photograph 21 - Manmade cattle watering hole, set back approximately 40 feet from right bank (Stati(
-22+00).
12
Photograph 22 - View downstream, gravel and cobble bar with grass along left bank. Both 1- arks ..c
relatively steep, though the right bank has more hoof shear. Right floodplain extends approximately 20 feet
back from the top of right bank to the toe of slope.
s
s
•
•
•
•
s
•
•
i
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County

? i

ILL

s
_ ItO

Photograph 23 - View downstream; right bank has sigmtcant erosion trom cattle access. Large overhanging
tree on left bank with roots exposed from undercutting.
13
Photograph 24 - Confluence of UT3 with UTBC along right bank, significant erosion due to cattle ac( -ss.
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
•
w
w
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
w
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
Photograph 25 - Headcut along UT3, approximately 50 feet upstream of confluence with UTBC.
14
Photograph 26 - Concrete pipe along UT3, above headcut.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
w
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
Photograph 27 - A portion of the flow in UT3 crosses a field towards the right bank of UTBC. The channel
appears to be newly formed, either due to overbank flow or was excavated to redirect flow.
15
Photograph 28 - View downstream of fallen tree and large debris jam across UTBC.
i
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
r?-
E

Photograph 29 - View downstream of lett bank bench and gravel bar, erosion of rlgnt bank Irom cattle access.
16
un0orcutting has left roots exposed.
Appendix C
Photograph 31 - f
tree on each bank.
McCain Site, Randolph County
cattle crossing. Note meander bend downstream of cattle crossing, with large
17
Photograpn 32 - Bedrock in streambed at cattle crossing.
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
Photograph 33 - Sinkholes in riparian area approximately 30 feet from right bank of UTBC. Maximum depth
is approximately two feet.
Photograph 34 - View downstream of series of debris jams. The disruption of flow has cau ;ed lc,,aitzed bank
erosion and the formation of plunge pools. Fence line approximately 20 feet from left top of bank marks
property boundary.
18
w
•
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
Photograph 35 - Downstream view. Left bank is nearly vertical; right bank is sloped back due to cattle
access.

v4 - - - -? h '_ P_n-, x1 3 x'.? 'AS -x

Photograph 36 - Downstream view at Cross-section 3, located at crossover point between two sharp meander
bends. Near-vertical right bank and sloping left bank are an indication of down-valley meander migration.
19
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
? _;? `,?'y` _. ,'' •-+[ - .`iLi?'°' +f'??P ?.?. .:ter; 4-,•
ZF_
Sw'
, It
Photograph 37 - Downstream view of Cross-section 4, located on meander with bed morphology that has
been significantly disturbed. Channel flow has both run and pool characteristics.
20
Photograph 38 - Downstream view of UTBC. Jnstaoie banks, undercutting around large tree on right bank
has left roots exposed. Further downstream, a large uprooted tree on the right bank has fallen away from
stream into riparian area.
Appendix C
McCain Site, Randolph County
Photograph 39 - Debris jam at downstream end of project, caused by barbed wire fence crossing stream at the
property boundary.
21
Photograph 40 - Concrete slab crossing stream channel approximately 20 feet downstream of project
boundary.
W
Appendix C
f ?J!•T
r
?Jl
McCain Site, Randolph County
i
?f
sue,
Photograph 41 - View upstream from right bank riparian area at downstream end of project. Overall stream
pattern influenced by alternating toe slopes as the stream progresses down valley.
22

McCain Site Restoration Plan
Existing Conditions
River Ba.:1: Lower Yadkin
Watershed: UT to Back Creek
XS ID XS-1 (Riffle)
Drainage :: *a s mi : 0.74
Date: Aril 25, 2003
Field Crew.- KN, DR, KB
4.9 4.39 100.16
5.3 4.56 99.99
6 4.6 99.95
8.6 5.01 99.54
10 5.24 99.31
12.9 6.52 98.03
13.2 6.89 97.66
14.1 7.04 97.51
14.3 7.19 97.36
15 7.28 97.27
15.7 7.55 97
16.7 7.62 96.93
17.5 7.58 96.97
17.9 7.67 96.88
18.9 7.59 96.96
20.5 7.77 96.78
21.7 7.82 96.73
22.5 7.75 96.8
30 7.42 97.13
30.3 7.86 96.69
30.8 7.69 96.86
31.2 7.91 96.64 11
32.3 6.49 98.06
32.6 6.21 98.34
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 98.29
Bankfuil Cross-Sectional Area: 21.30
Bankfull Width: 19.36
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 100.01
Flood Prone Width: 34.00
Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.72
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.10
W / D Ratio: 17.6
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.76
Bank Height Ratio: 1.03
slope fVft : 0.011
Discharge cfs 83.93
Dss XSl 22
D `Profile 1 35
Lower Yadkin River Basin, UT to Back Creek, XS-1 (Riffle)
110

105
w

a?
tot.
100
C
0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a?
di
95

- - Bankfull
- - Flood Prone Area
90

0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
40 5.57
42 5.07
Stream Type: B4c
s
e
•
McCain Site Restoration Plan
Existing Conditions
Stream: UT to Back Creek
Location: Cross-section #1 Sta 1+33)
Date: 4/25/2003

Particle
ize Range mm
791-7
ota
Item o
a um.
S/C Silt/Clay < .
Very Fine Sand 0.062 < 0. 125 2 4
.b Fine Sand 0.125 < 0.25 2 4 12
9 Medium Sand 0.25 < 0.50 0 0 12
rn Coarse Sand 0.50 < 1.0 1 2 14
Very Coarse an 1 < 2 1
Very Fine rave < 0 0 18
Fine Gravel 4<6 1 2 20
Fine Gravel 6<8 1 2 22
Medium Gravel 8 < 11 4 8 29
Medium Gravel 11 < 16 5 10 39
Coarse Gravel 16 < 22 6 12 51
Coarse Gravel 22 < 32 9 18 69
Ve Coarse Gravel 32 < 45 2 4 73
Very Coarse rave 5 < 64 5 1 82
Small Cobble 64 < 90 6 8
Z Medium Cobble 90 < 128 1 2 90
U Large Cobble 128 < 180 4 8 [
98
Very are Cobble 18 < 5 1 2 1
Small Boulder 5 < 362 0 0 100
Small Boulder 362 < 512 0 0 100
Medium Boulder 512 < 1024 0 0 100
Large Boulder 1024 <2048 0 0 100
Very Large Boulder 2048 <4096 0 0 100
r Bedrock Bedrock
51 100 1 100
SdflClay ( Sands Gravels Cobbles Bnalders Bedrock
50
100
I! I,,II' i''
0 I '. ,
I 45
9
I 40
80
\
0 I( 35
7
1 y
30
G t
25
o, 50
' O

3
I I I d
20
40
V 30 I I 15 Z
? I I I I
20 !? ! l0
¦
5
10 -

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-*-% Cumulative (Finer Than) ¦ Number of Particles
Sze percent less than mm
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95
1. 14 2 7 1
Percent by substrate type o
SildCla Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
14 5 18 1 0 0
McCain Site Restoration Plan
Existing Conditions

Drainage Area s ml): 0
.74
April

0 2.08 100.00 Bankfull Elevation:

4
1.71
100.37 -• a??_
8 1.27 100.81 'dr; -°'
9.5
11 1.22
1.46 100.86
100.62 Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone
12 1.86 100.22
^
12.3 8.38 93.70 Mean Depth
12.8 8.48 93.60 W ! D Ratio: NA
?
14 8.68 93.40 7'1*
14.7 8.67 93.41
Bank Height r ..,?` a
?t,
15 8.91 93.17
16.6 8.92 93.16 Discharge cfs Stream Type: 134c
17 9.24 92.84
17.8 9.16 92.92 D
19.9 9.05 93.03
20.6 8.95 93.13
22.2 8.55 93.53
23.2 8.34 93.74 Lower
24 7.75 94.33
24.3 7.56 94.52
25.7 7.34 94.74
26.2 7.45 94.63
32 7.19 94.89
33.4 6.9 95.18 105
34.8 6.63 95.45
36.3 6.12 95.96
37 5.95 96.13 100
37.4 5.89 96.19
38.5 5.59 96.49
40.3 5.29 96.79 95
43 5.27 96.81
47 5.04 97.04 Flood Prone Area
d
56.2 4.8 97.28 1 i .
59.3 't1 97.67
61.4 7 97.81
62.5 4.24 97.84
65.3 4.02 98.06
69.5 3.89 98.19
71 3.7 98.38
River
Basin:
: Lower Yadkin
Watershed: UT to Back Creek
XS ID XS-2 Pool

Date: 24, 2003
Field Crew: KN, DR, KB
Station
Rod Ht. Elevation
SUMMARY DATA
95.18
Bankfnll Cross-Sectional Area: 26.00
Bankfull Width: 21.17
NA
Width: NA
Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.34
at Bankfull: 1.23

Entrenchment Ratio: NA
Ratio: NA
Slo a tuft: 0.0002
NA
D? XS2 9
? Profile 1 35
Yadkin River Basin, UT to Back Creek, XS-2 (Pool)
110

-
w
m
0 --

m
a?
W

.

- - Bank
- -
90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
i
McCain Site Restoration Plan
Existing Conditions
Stream: UT to Back Creek
Location: Cross-section #2 (Sta 2+68
Date:
Particle Ize Range mm ota Item o o um.
S/C Silt/Clay <
Very the Sand 0.062 < 0. 125 0
v Fine Sand 0.125 < 0.25 0 0 0
Medium Sand 0.25 < 0.50 7 14 14
to Coarse Sand 0.50 < 1.0 1 2 16
Very Coarse an I < 10 36
Very Fine rave 2<4 4 8 44
Fine Gravel 4<6 1 2 46
Fine Gravel 6 < 8 1 2 48
Medium Gravel 8 < 11 3 6 54
L Medium Gravel 11 < 16 1 2 56
Coarse Gravel 16 < 22 5 10 66
Coarse Gravel 22 < 32 4 8 74
Ve Coarse Gravel 32 < 45 5 10 84
Very Coarse rave 5 < 64 5 It) 94
Small Cobble 64 < 90 0 0 94
:S Medium Cobble 90 < 128 1 2 96
U Lar e Cobble 128 < 180 2 4 100
Very are Cobble 180 < 256 0 0 100
Small Boulder 5 < 362 0 0 100
Small Boulder 362 < 512 0 0 100
'° Medium Boulder 512 < 1024 0 0 100
Large Boulder 1024 <2048 0 0 100
Very Large Boulder 2048 <4096 0 0

r
Bedrock
Be roc t

?
Tml? - 1 50 IUO I
0 SilNClay Sands Gra rls Cobbles 1 Boulders Bedrock 50
10 I.

90 I
45

I
I I i;
I
80 I u; I 40

c
0 35
7
v
d 60 I
I
I
I

I I •

(
I
N
30
t
d 50 25
- c
a 4 20 m
F
0
30

20 l0
I
10 mi It 5

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-? % Cumulative (Finer Than) ¦ Number of Particles
Size percent lev than
.9 1.9 5 110
Percent by substrate type o
Silt/Cla Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
0 1 36 58 0

McCain Site Restoration Plan
Existing Conditions
...

Drainage Area s mi : 0.87

T ~ y-
4
_
-? ??
i14W ?
4,
?
?
4 w
? w v -
i
l
7

s -,fit o _ a ?',r

ES

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

River Basin: Lower Yadkin
Watershed: UT to Back Creek
XS ID XS-3 Riffle/Run

Date: Aril 24, 2003
Field Crew: KN, DR, KB
Station Rod Ht. Elevation
0 5.11 100.00
4 5.32 99.79
6.5 5.5 99.61
8 5.62 99.49
9.8 6 99.11
10.8 6.31 98.80
11.6 6.44 98.67
12.4 6.69 98.42
13 7.05 98.06
13.8 7.53 97.58
14.5 7.97 97.14
15 8.19 96.92
15.5 8.39 96.72
16.2 ?'s 62 96.49
.; j2 96.49
18.5 8.95 96.16
19.5 8.76 9635
19.8 8.63 96.48
19.9 8.37 96.74
20.3 7.91 97.20
21 6.25 98.86
21.2 5.1 100.01
21.5 4.86 100.25
22.5 4.82 100.29
25 4.81 1003

7

7 SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 99.64
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 25.70
Bankfull Width: 14.63
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 103.12
Flood Prone Width: 125.00
Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.48
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.76
W / D Ratio: 83
Entrenchment Ratio: 8.54
Bank Height Ratio: 0.99
Slope tt/ft : 0.0014
Discharge cfs 61.44 Stream Type:
D Profile
105
100.24

-
D? XS3 0.34
le 2 0.2
Lower Yadkin River Basin, UT to Back Creek, XS-3 (Riffle/Run)
110

w
0100
--- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------

W
95

Bankfull
-Flood ProneArea
90

0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
i
•
i
•
i
McCain Site Restoration Plan
Existing Conditions
Stream: UT to Back Creek
Location: Cross-section #3 ta 21+42)
S
Date: 4/MOO
Particle 1ze ange mm ota Item o o um.
Silt/Clay < ,
Very Fine Sand 0.062 < 0. 125 0 0 1
.b Fine Sand 0.125 < 0.25 12 24 40
13 Medium Sand 0.25 < 0.50 12 24 64
rn Coarse Sand 0.50 < 1.0 4 8 72
Very Coarse an 1 < 1
Very Fine rave < 3 6 80
Fine Gravel 4<6 2 4 84
Fine Gravel 6<8 2 4 88
Medium Gravel 8 < 11 5 10 98
Medium Gravel 11 < 16 0 0 98
c7 Coarse Gravel 16 < 22 1 2 100
Coarse Gravel 22 < 32 0 0 100
Very Coarse Gravel 32 < 45 0 0 100
Very Coarse rave 45 < 4 0 0 100
Small Cobble 64 < 90 0 100
n Medium Cobble 90 < 128 0 0 100
U Large Cobble 128 < 180 0 0 100
Very Large Cobble 180 < 256 0 0 100
Small Boulder 256 < 362 0 0 100
Small Boulder 362 < 512 0 0 100
Medium Boulder 512 < 1024 0 0 100
Large Boulder 1024 <2048 0 0 100
Very Large Boulder 2048 < 409 0 0 100
r Bedrock Bedrock

sdecky Sands ? G-I Cobbles 1 Boulders ? Bedrock
100 50
90 i 4
5
so 40

70 Ii ( ! ! I 35

60
' 30 4i

I I III
,
( ti
50
25 c
z 40 I I'' 20 °
a
U l l Z
30 15
I'
I ¦ ¦ I I
20 10
10 I' i I _ I 5

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-? % Cumulative (Finer Than) ¦ Number of Particles

Size percent less than (mm)
i
D16 D35 D50 D84 l
0 2 0.22 1 U.34 1 6 Percent O
by substrate type o
Silt/Cla Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
16 1 58 26 0 0

McCain Site Restoration Plan
Existing Conditions
River Basin: Lower Yadkin
Watershed: UT to Back Creek
XS ID XS-4 Run/Pool
Drainage Areas mi : 0.87
Date: Aril 24.2003
Field Crew: KN, DR, KB
Station Rod Ht. Elevation
0 5.33 100.00
7 5.49 99.84
8.3 5.6 99.73
14 5.72 99.61
17 6 99.33
20.1 6.47 98.86
21.1 6.68 98.65
22.4 6.87 98.46
23.5 7.03 98.30
25.4 7.64 97.69
26.3 7.72 97.61
28 8.19 97.14
28.5 8.64 96.69
28.8 8.67 96.66
29 8.79 96.54
29.5
0 8.84 96.49
30 8.97 96.36
30.3 8.99 96.34
30.8 9.17 96.16
31.2 9.25 96.08
31.5 9.15 96.18
32.1 8.76 96.57
32.2 8.66 96.67
32.4 8.27 97.06
32.9 7.06 98.27
33.3 5.79 99.54
33.7 5.54 99.79
34.6 5.46 99.87
34.9 5.57 99.76
39 5.5 99.83
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 99.42
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 29.30
Bankfull Width: 19.41
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 102.76
Flood Prone Width: 125.00
Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.34
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.51
W / D Ratio: 12.9
Entrenchment Ratio: 6.44
Bank Height Ratio: 1.06
Slope ft/ft : 0.0025
Dischar a cfs 87.76
D, XS4 0.2
D Profile 2 0.2

Lower Yadkin River Basin, UT to Back Creek, XS4 (Run/Pool)
110

105

a 1
--------------------------------------------------
100
- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------

m
W 95

- - Bankfull
- - Flood Prone Area
90

0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e
e
•
e
e
e
e
McCain Site Restoration Plan
Existing Conditions
Stream: UT to Back Creek
Location: Cross-section #4 Sta 22+85
Date:
Particle Size Range mm ota Item o o um.
S/C Silt/Clay <
Very the Sand 0.062 < . 125 3 6 33'
D Fine Sand 0.125 < 0.25 10 20 56
Medium Sand 0.25 < 0.50 10 20 76
r" Coarse Sand 0.50 < 1.0 10 20 96
Very Coarse Sand I < 2 2 ___T_ too
Very Fine rave 2<4 0 0 100
Fine Gravel 4<6 0 0 100
Fine Gravel 6<8 0 0 100
Medium Gravel 8 < 11 0 0 100
Medium Gravel 11 < 16 0 0 100
Coarse Gravel 16 < 22 0 0 100
Coarse Gravel 22 < 32 0 0 100
Very Coarse Gravel 32 < 45 0 0 100
Very Coarse 6ravel 45 <
Small Cobble 64 < 90 0 100
a Medium Cobble 90 < 128 0 0 100
V Lar e Cobble 128 < 180 0 0 100
Very are Cobble 180 < 256
0
0
Small Boulder 5 < 6 0 0 100
Small Boulder 362 < 512 0 0 100
° Medium Boulder 512 < 1024 0 0 100
Large Boulder 1024 <2048 0 0 100
Very Large Boulder 2048 <4096 0 0 100
B(Irk Bedrock a roc
-) u 100 100
S'IVClay Sands Grovels Cobbles Boulden Bedrock
l00
I 50
90 I 45

80 40
I,

a 70 I 35
I
d 60 . 30

50 - 25 c
z 40 j 20
V Z
0
3 I i 15
20 10

10 5

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-+-% Cumulative (Finer Than) ¦ Number of Particles

Sze ercent 11 ess than mm
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95
0.062 11 0. 5 .9
Percent by substrate type o
Silt/Cla Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
3U 1 70 0 0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix D
Stream Design Strategy
McCain Site, Randolph Co
In the layout of the relocated stream design, the natural stability of the planform was of great
concern. The two natural ranges for Rc/Wbkf and PP/Wbkf were targeted. However it was only
after the second design iteration that these values were attained.
• The allocation of the stream drop across the proposed profile had to match the three general reach
. gradients of the existing profile. After the first design iteration, it became obvious that there was
going to be a hydraulic drop issue at the upstream gradient increase and a slope transition would be
• required at the downstream reduction in stream gradient. Because of concerns over a reduction in
bed roughness along the steeper portion of the relocated alignment, the Sriffle/Save ratio was kept
• low and the Lriffle/Lpool ratio kept high. These two values are expected to adjust as the relocated
channel sorts its bed over time. Also the Dpool/Dbkf ratio was held within a natural range, which
• results in the WpooVWbkf ratio being very low and out of range.
•
• In cross section, the concern over the proposed channel bed roughness resulted to a reduction in both
Dbkf and the W/D ratio. As a consequence the Abkf was higher and Vbkf lower than the target
• values.
. The combination of planform, profile and dimension adjustments met the design shear velocity
target value, which is an indication that the channel would remain stable once it is taken away from
• the valley walls and place back into an existing alluvial layer in the bottom of the valley.
• At the upstream channel gradient transition, a hydraulic drop will result from the differences in the
• stream channel W/D ratios. To remedy this drop and prevent a headcut from proceeding upstream, a
flow constrictor was designed to manage the energy of this water surface drop. The flow
. environment at the top of the project site is obviously energetic, such that a few step-pool structures
- may be required at the property line in-lieu-of the first riffle-pool sequence.
Tributaries where possible will be turned into the abandoned stream channel and connections
• provided to link the abandoned channel to the proposed channel. This will retain the natural bottom
• of the existing stream channel and provide even greater variety in rearing and refugia habitat. Where
the exiting channel alignment and the proposed channel alignment crosses, the abandoned channel
will be plugged at its upstream end and partially filled to prevent chute cutoffs from forming. There
• will also be a couple of very good opportunities to create off-channel oxbow habitat. Where the
. abandoned channel strikes the valley walls, a bench should be installed of soil such that vegetation
can stabilize the exposed high banks.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The design spreadsheets are included on the following pages.

- O-4 ),16$., ib9•cYLmtl
M•n9.
M%rpe
Ma•pe ber•9e by.as.a. ow,n oolp?
PdM 31•tlarl R••d1 Rs•a? RMa Flwb Bed IOM Pad Myb•u4 Iryd•Jk Gr•O• C0%v%I .•6 Told RMb Tda Pod Clrmsl 1Hquptla M%r•8• R$.• pad Sutlon 0.81b 0.tl0p Ree• Pod PaY• Paa1 Pod F1ol Dw18n NDq %Td [bdp n pwgn
T T la Ebvaean

V 4 LIM EbMNYI Ebvaldl Le O Ls l 3 Sb S FI L F L B
N1
PP]I M PPMt
Lm q LOVMq R.
Ra02q
N) 101 101 (01 101 101 Inml OMI ml (01 011 011 101 I0m1 IMII ONO 101 (•1 In) 1.1 (0) 1
(0) (0) (Ip In) IBI % 11U
1000.00 3i 3 3.]0 11319 11215 85.. I. 0.009p OOOfi)fi O.W2BW 1000.00 3]10JJ3 95. 13]1 130.8] 1908 1.8 t BOA .30 1.-
rpll• 16.19 26.]9 0NO., 0
PL 1o1..A
pool
19.n 000 2
0.00288- .1. .3.w
U^PERBIM120RREALM l.1. n o
0 0
1
>0 10]
PT 1036.07 2 515.5] 513.53 10N07 0 0
YAI• To. 70.88 0.006].] Vduy Ln9111, x15.11 0
PL 1106.96 2 515.05 .305 9vw9PH: 1.165 110890 0 0

IT pool
1152 ..1 45.M ON
x 000289-
SH.92 .292 0
L1981 D 1
0 E 1.91
mn• es..1 .SOl oO-
0
PL t-02 4]]2 2 SN.N .2.31 12b BT 0
0 1 35 1..
c M1a
.22 2 .x20
IT 1x05.
MA•
108
11 108
11 1.3
o
OtOM] .x.20 M33Y 293AB JS B] 15 OWW57 0.01.17 00052
.0
1% I_ .2% 1285
1 88.218
129% 0 6 58.858.8x
0 117% '.1]1 ?BI?Tv 2 .432102 ??
1N% 3 1126
PL 13".05 .
. 1.] . .23> .1.0) . 139106 0 0

IT pd8
-OT Mat 0.00
1
3 0.005A8
.2
11 .0
. 118101E 114IOR REACH 0
113801 1
0 80 2.
968] 98.6] . 00-7 .
. V•gL?g10'. $1219 1 O
PC 15N. 1.3 .1.11 6]8..1 9oluulry'. 11111 153.. 0 0
pod 1-.11 o00 o.- o 1 B0 2.
IT 158855 13 -0.S 99w 1588.55 0 0
0Re 8015 BOAS OOl-, o
Pc 16)].00 1.3 Sw.91 538.61 181].00 0

IT pod
1186.11 99.11 o.

T9
)0.
1 3 0.005A9

O
O
]
533 N S 8.11 0
1>m.1. 0 1 90 2..

PC
t.5n MB• ..
13 .
tON
SN Bt 53].31 1
INS.A 0 0
0

IT pool
11nAB 30.11 000
1
3 0.005206
9825 5
17
15 0
18)BA9 0 1
0 w 208

PC MM
1.101 .5.12 85.32 .
1
3 6910.1 .
.
97
7T 538
1 0

8000 000 .
000520. .
1 1.101 0
0 0
9 2,08
I.
MIl•
13]1 p11
0.00]805 1 1.1
580% M.0% 1A% 11% 1. 1
1
e0%
0 93% 1 1
9B%
PC x005.32 IT 9700 95N 2085.52 0 0
pad .01 ON 6.O.TA Tr•mutlon 0 1 p 2.00
IT xf 195$ 1] SNT] 5150) 2119.w 0 0
MM )O.w TO. 0.001885 Vdby LedPe: 135.x$ 0
Pc 2190.15 IT SN 31 531..51 99wwry: 1218 2tp.15 0 0
pad 33$1 000 00.216 0 1 35 1.15
IT 21A 98
Mee
81
11 83
71 1)
000]9.5 5380] SN.31 2223.88 0 0
0
PC xxeTe/ .
. 'T SJS.. 5]3.08 AB741 0 0

IT pod
x310]0 9eJ 000
IT 000122.
635." 93.. 0
23p J0 0
0 ]6 1.15

PC •
210]." . W ..N
IT 0.00]985
SN Bt 533.11 1
NOT" 0 0
0
pad 3301 000 00.22$ 0 35 1.15
PT 2"0.21
e
52
05 5105 13
000]$85 SN 61 532.8) x11o.n 0 o
o
PL N92.3x . 1.1 531.x5 92.55 x182.32 0 0
59p 000 OW13A 0 1 p 200
IT 2551.]8 533 2 92.00 532. 121 9J. Ap 00511] 0.008]86 0002]5 355118 0 B fib. IS 0 S1.B.A t 36.31 236 16.86 tB t % B
t
1 .5 13,13
M
• T6N Te.3- OOO.J. 69.8% pA% 132% .% 1 91% 0 103% w%
PC 2810.11 2 533 AJ 91A] A30.1I 0 0
pod 18,19 000 0002]5] 0 1 65 BOB
IT 26n.N
MM
82
A bIA T
00067. 533.31 9131 l0%ER YAIOR REACN An.N 0 0
K 3)$0.65 , : 532.n 530.]9
V
n elwgN Jn&1 T)p.85 0 0
pod 15.82 000 O.OOn. s11uuIH: 1232 o 1 p 2TT
IT 2808.5)
]Sla
.
. bB
N 2
0008)86 532.8.5 90.85 x$08.5] 0 0
0
PC AIM .
. 2 531.A SJO.A 2913.11 0 0
pod 1881 Op OOO2751 o 1 IS 2.50
IT Awn 2 91 p SA A ASO.n 0 0
MA• 11.87 77,67 0.006]88 o
PL 302799
pod
]].JI 000 T
0002is) SatM 6A.b 30P BB 0
0 0
1
35 t9I
IT 3081 8]
MAa
80
80 p
A 2
0008186 91,37 5A3] -11 0
1 0
0
PC 31n.10 .
. 2 SJO.BB 9889 31u.19 o 0
pod 929 000 0002151 0 1 35 tw
IT 31n.2e
mn.
w
to 9
10 2
0aa67ee 530.. 52981 31)..A 0
1 0
B
Pc 32N.N .
. z 530.12 6xe.I2
32N.N o
0

IT pm
a11e.6J ..19 ON
z 0m2757
s3o.16 ss6ae o
9m s] 0 1
0 ss 3.
n9• .ez ee a2 oooe]w 1 0
PL 3N] w 2 SA n 63112 3w]A 0 0
pad few ao9 oao2757
a
1
35 1.N
IT NO5.9.
MN
395] 38.9 2
0000]88 MIT 9)81 NOSH 0
1 0
0
P "1555 521 10 2 _.... 52]p
' N4555
-
1a 5721=13 "
Ti7555 16M C-48
58.1% 21 21 "8 11. .14
•pe: 218
vllry L•np0: 1950.81 .
Taul suluo•.y. 1.YA
Aw. R••d 1-y 1.201302
susl..m Ia131

MRq R.q A.erpe Vrv..
Y,01 0038 b F..pen B3 rnxn Nw ndngl 0038 bX..e.n B3pwn Hw
oolow) rr
, iJ A
?I A gnx sww oam]eI
Dmu 2 A
10 R aoI
1.23 Drw
1000 Wdo
n nx
N.b n
1.011x11 R

1.12 DmMin 21.1 Rx
e-0e 1
M 1.918911 A

1.52 Dn.YRh xs.ls Aaq

tAt OxWeh
b awwox b. .q0h 11012- 1p. 3.ex veq
98.).1505 d. 95.0]SBD d. t2B0W

t
w3 Saw WgWdd
35 DxwDOFI
1
1 b) t tat) Wol69Y.1
i
b Dm.uDW
1
]e DmumYq
.
-mu O.w2M8 IY.R12 . nnv 0.BUN1 lMlt . .
rVr Om12B M 0 1011118 5 3 ml. Sh..r Vr o6BO155M 0.1012.119 m1 1.x01{ mh
Pod Pool x.12 DOOd
xt.m Wpool
iry'. 0050 b pod q..a. mND'. o Om0 bqW Sn.a.
0.005308
x.31 A

i
2w OwoSDbq O.IA1
Dpod 3 a n
210 OpaoYDYFI ]B. Mod

DpmADYq
1.
x1 n ±. wwdmNq p.d m R 1.11 wpwvwXa t.m wwwvu9
m.BB AZ 1.M Ap- 38.5 nt 1.81 Al-A 1.53 MooRAW
21.91 A
1 A36811 A 21.10 1
1..3221 R
dy 2)1]5x5 b.
0X5812 d. rwh 2.ase52 1w
.03111 d. 2.m Vwd
mVpmWEq
npb
d?xM
Gogh
M p?wi mlb
tNnM
0o x
r
? tl?.xi.l

?
I tnl
13 0 t3 0 lXl IXI
0 0 X
10 0

0 as a.33 a -1 s
s
rluw
-1.3 0 - .2x

-10 M o 3 o
2.
.52
-0 3
11 0 -12 0 -D 0 -10 0

1
lFl N
lX)
r
134 0
10 -1.2
S 2
r YM 0 -1.9
-1x1 a

X1 Olnln
131 0
t0.s d]
5 Z
0
-tzJ o.sn
Yxfx On
QnM.OYxu
1g1.nn 0.9

M 000
2a 180
10x1

V
] w9
LAW;
WWrxd.gh o
hetlrwb6egh 2.Om
b LxpW
Wwn mepri.rM 3
8 R..O rX..SMw1.pM
.
xpx
L.pN
qul Raw
02.
]2M
W.+ me0r a0B
LxpW
11..1
Ipwllo?
21.500 r Awrx eagh
O.Im
Y.)e]
awlfv.0
?txyn
Fe.1
z1.5. rsa xrx a,pm
0.2.
qul bw
]Bwl Flex m.u1
rSL46.:dai.Wnd
1xx,
-.

wag ??
N n: 003n
OOm168
z n
1a n
bRop.n W Wwm Nw

M
Vogcly 25.5 M
1e.)s
t.m A
3.818918 M

1.11 dw.IRh
13oq t..emt 14
)1 WX9?bq
12
Dqd
SMx+?m
6Aev V. n
. O.eMwt OM1
I 018010 N1 .
1.11 Pwg00q
0.1013]8)8 M.

q.xiY4 Pod
0.050
bpml b....
Sbw 0..215] _
Dppol 3.33 A 2J5 ovooenelo
wwd
n
.
vn wwwweq

Rn 4
1 A
1031 It9N p 1,8] Mm9ArC
V-y 2118895 b
OYq 1..2811 W
rXM
W
^ ?
W

cxMr bi Inl
IXI
9 0
8
. -1.5
2
-0 .1.5
-0 0 X
t0 0

-2: 35
1
d Z
-to 0
M.nninDl 0099 bRw9.n BJ.Imm type
e .Mpww
D... ?a n
WLI 20 X
2X1 M
x08. A
M 123895. A 1.32 Dmonin
Vgodly 0w831a Iw
Ceq 1..J088 4.
15.83 WMWd!
OW 1.280 D.AD 1.77 DnI.riDW
SIm,Vq 016021 M 0.201302)92 M.
]bd
ndn0'. oos bppXlla.e.
5'Yy. 0.1328
Dpod 2R 2.11 Dpm4Dd9
Wwd 30 A 1.. wpmVWDq
An. .12 n3 1.43 Mw6Ad1
11.3 1
Po 1.231588 A
Vegdly x.11Y2111w
0811 100.5508 d.
N.x.r1 ? tlunr4
6.qn mcnr
'IMI 1X1 •1X1^ (XI
t0 0 10 0
e 1: se ae
urM W 0 -1.2 0 -2.1m
J -1.2 -01 -17
m o -19 0
Appendix E
McCain Site, Randolph Co
From the survey of the two reference reach locations, the following geometry and flow conditions
were calculated. The site location information of these two reference reaches follows:
Stream UTBC US of McCain Site
Reach Reference Reach
Station 0+00 to 7+12
Location
Descri don Composite - 2 Riffle XS and 3 Pool XS
Stream Type -
Wbld ft 10.4 16.1 13.3
Dbkf ft 0.90 1.20 1.05
Abkf ft 12.5 14.4 13.5
Wbkf/Dbkf /D fUft 11.6 13.4 12.6
Dmax ft 1.40 1.70 1.55
a Wf ft 150.0 150.0 150.0
Wf a/Wbkf (ER) (M) 1 14.4 9.3 11.3
U)
Save
ft/ft
0.0068
0.0072
0.0070
K 1.70 1.70
D50 mm
D84 mm
Vbkf fUsec 4.4 5.0 4.7
Qbkf cfs 63.1 63.2 63.2
Wbkf ft 10.4 16.1 13.3
Dbkf ft 0.90 1.20 1.05
Abld s ft) 12.5 14.4 13.5
Dmax ft 1.40 1.70 1.55
w Wf a ft 150.0 150.0 150.0
u Dtob ft 2.2 3.6 2.9
_
LL
Vbkf
ft/sec
4.4
5.0
4.7
p Qbkf (cfs) 63.1 63.2 63.2
Wbkf/Dbkf (W/D ft/ft 11.6 13.4 12.6
Uj o Dmax/Dbkf fUft 1.56 1.42 1.48
o DtobfDmax ff/ft 1.57 2.12 1.87
ft/ft) 14.4 9.3 11.3
W pool ft 10.1 16.0 14.0
D pool ft 1.80 2.50 2.17
J Apool (sq ft) 10.4 19.3 15.9
a c WpooUYWM ft/ft 0.97 0.99 1.06
? Dpool/Dbkf- ft/ft 2.00 2.08 2.07
CE I APOOUADKT ft2fft2 0.81 1.11 1.04
Lm ft 70.0 120.0 97.5
z Re ft 14.5 25.9 18.6
w Wblt ft 135.0 135.0
K 1.70 1.70
LmNYbkf ft/ft 6.73 7.45 7.36
RrlWbkf ft/ft 1.39 1.61 1.41
(ft/ft) 12.98 10.19
Sval ft/ft 0.0070 0.0075 0.0073
Save fUft 0.0068 0.0072 0.0070
Sriffle fUft 0.0100 0.0410 0.0199
Spool ft/ft 0.0000 0.0013 0.0003
Lriffle ft 9.0 108.0 40.7
J
LL L pool ft 31.0 108.0 53.4
0 P to P (ft) 43.5 181.0 80.3
CL Sriffle/Save ftlft 2.8429
q Spool/Save fUft 0.0000 0.1806 0.0429
LrifflefWbkf fVft) 0.87 6.71 3.07
`? LpooUWbkf ft/ft 2.98 6.71 4.03
to fUft) 4.18 11.24 6.06
U) D50-reach mm 23 54 39
Q D84-reach mm 84 114 99
D50-riffle (mm)
F D84-riffle mm
a D50-pool mm
D84-pool (mm)
Richland Creek
Reference
Ramble/Min Mar M-

14.8 27.1 21.0
0.80 1.50 1.15
21.2 22.3 21.8
18.5 18.1 18.2
1.90 2.00 1.95
200.0 200.0 200.0
13.5 7.4 9.5
0.0120 0.0120
1.46 1.46
70.0
168.0
5.8 6.8 6.3
122.6 151.4 137.0
14.8 27.1 21.0
0.80 1.50 1.15
21.2 22.3 21.8
1.90 2.00 1.95
200.0 200.0 200.0
3.4 3.7 3.6
5.8 6.8 6.3
122.6 151.4 137.0
18.5 18.1 18.2
2.38 1.33 1.70
1.79 1.85 1.82
13.5 7.4 9.5
15.2
3.10
36.5
0.73
2.09
1.70
148.0 108.0 128.0
16.3 26.8 22.8
75.0 75.0
1.46 1.46
10.00 3.99 6.11
1.10 0.99 1.09
5.07 3.58
0.0126 0.0126
0.0120 0.0120
0.0030 0.0756 0.0289
0.0009 0.0074 0.0027
16.0 103.0 46.0
28.0 89.0 47.6
38.0 147.0 92.3
2.4122
0.0758 0.2290
1.08 3.80 2.20
1.89 3.28 2.27
2.57 5.42 4.40
70
168
79
155
60
181
2
Memorandum
Re: McCain Mitigation Site Reference Reaches
Date: May 21, 2004
Introduction/Overview
As part of the Mitigation Planning effort for the McCain Site in Randolph County, North
Carolina, a suitable reference reach was needed to develop dimensionless geomorphic
ratios for use in the stream restoration design. The selection criteria included a stable
reach occurring under similar hydrophysiographic, landform, and watershed land use
conditions.
The project site occurs in rolling to hilly terrain of the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion of
the Piedmont physiographic province. The project stream runs through a gently sloping
valley (average slope of approximately 0.8%) with alternating toe slopes. The project
watershed is a small (0.88 square miles), primarily forested watershed with a small
percentage of agriculture, pasture, and rural, low-density residential land uses. A
reference reach with similar site and watershed conditions was desired.
It was determined that the restored stream will contain sections of two Rosgen stream
types - "C3" and "C4." The NCDOT reference reach database was used to select
potential reference reaches with similar stream type and slope. The database did not
contain any Rosgen "C3" type steams in the piedmont physiographic province, however
four potential "C4" reference reaches were visited to determine their use for this project.
The reaches are listed below:
- UT to South Fork Cane Creek, Chatham County
- Morgan Creek, Orange County
- Spencer Branch, Montgomery County
- Richland Creek, Moore County
Richland Creek was selected as a reference reach for the McCain Site. In addition, a
second suitable reference reach site was located on the project stream (UT to Back
Creek), immediately upstream of the project site. Each reference reach is described
below with the location, description, and surveyed data.
i
i
Stream UTBC US of McCain Site
Reach Reference Reach
Station 0+00 to 7+12
Location _
Description om site - 2 Riffle XS and 3 Pool
Sample/Min Max Mean

Wbkf (ft)
Dbkf (ft)
Abkf s ft

Dmax ft
w Wf a ft
LL
Dtob
ft
Vbkf ft/sec
p Dbkf (cfs)
H
z
Wbkf/DbM W/D Twit)
G DmaxlObkf ftm
Dtob/Dmax ftmt
Wfpa/Wbkf (ER) fdft
W pool (fl)
O pool (ft)
p Apool
i!2-ft) /Wbkf
F IiDbM

Apod/Abkf
Wft)
ft2flt2
Lm (ft) I
Rc ft
C Wblt ft
K
IL o LMWbkf- tut
F RdWbkf '
WbIU_ Wbkf ON
fl/ft
Sval ft/ft
Save ft ft
Sr'rffle ft/ft
Spool ft/ft
J Lrifne ft
u L pool ft
D
cc
P to P
(ft)
a Sri81e/Save v ltlft -.
c USave ft/ft
LritOelWbkf
mm)
IMlbkf fvft
;. P to PMIbM ft/ft
D50-reach mm
rn ach mm
-y iffle mm
f iffle
K mm
2 mm
D84-pDol (mm)
10.4 16.1 133
0.9 1.2 1.1
12.5 14.4 13.5

1.4 1.7 1.6
150.0 150.0 150.0
2.2 3.6 2.9
4.7
63.2
11.6 13.4 1216
1.6 1.4 1.5
1.6 2.1 1.9
14.4 - 9.3 11.3
10.1 16.0 14.0
1.0 1.5 1.3
1064 19.3 15.9
1.0 1.0 1.1
1.1 1.3 1.2
0.8 1.1 1.0
70.0 120.0 97.5
14.5 25.9 18.6
135.0 135.0
1.7 1.7
6.7 7.5 7.4
1.4 1.6 1.4
13.0 10.2
0.0070 0.0075 0.0073
040068 0.0072 0.0070
0.0100 0.0410 0.0199
0.0000 0.0013 0.0003
9.0 108.0 40.7
31.0 10810 53.4
43.5 181.0 80.3
2.8429
040000 0.1806 0.0429
0.9 6.7 3.1
3.0 6.7 4.0
4.2 11.2 6.1
23 54 39
84 114 99

Curve
16.0.16.5
(8-32) 95%
Confidence Interve
45-67
(22-200) 95%
Confidence Interve
14.8 27.1 21.0
0.8 1.5 1.2
21.2 22.3 21.8

1.9 2.0 2.0
200.0 200.0 200.0
3.4 3.7 3.6
5.8 6.8 6.3
122.6 151.4 137.0
18.5 18.1 18.2
2.4 1.3 1.7
1.8- 1.9 1.8
13.5 7.4 9.5
15.2
2.4
3.1
0.7
2.1
0.7
148.0 108.0 128.0
16.3 26.8 22.8
75.0 75.0
1.5 1.5
10.0 4.0 6.1
1.1 1.0 1.1
5.1 3.6
0.0126 0.0126
- 0.0120 0.0120
0.0030 0.0756 0.0289
0.0009 0.0074 0.0027
16.0 103.0 46.0
28.0 89.0 47.6
38.0 147.0 92.3
2.4122
0.0758 0.2290
1.1 3.8 22
1.9 3.3 2.3
-'2.6- 5.4 4.4
70
168
79
155
60
181
Curve 18.8
1.1 Curve
20.0-20.5 21.0 19.7-20.2
(10-00)95% (1040)95%
Confidence Interval 2.0 Confidence Interval

4.8
61-85 100.0 59-84
(28-250) 95% (28-250) 95%
Confidence Interval 17.0 oxfiden-c-e-fn-t-eiva-ll
1.6

28.2
2.2-2.75
62-78
.- - 1.5 --
^
^
2.0-2.5 --
Richland Creek Desi n
Reference Ratios

133c Unknown rC4 WAKE
US of Project Reach SF Cane Creek
RA OLPH Unknown
OWAN _ CHATHAM
Spencer Creek LEE
C4/E4 1.3%
STANLY Richland Creek MONTGOMER C4 1.3%
L MOORE
HARNETT

PION
CUMBERLAND
UT to Back Creek (UTBC), Randolph County
The UTBC reference site is located in Randolph County, northwest of the City of
Asheboro. The reference reach is located off of Lake Lucas Road, upstream of the
McCain property on a parcel owned by Mr. Ray Thomas of Climax, NC. This 712-foot
reach is a moderate to high sinuosity channel within a mature forested tract. UTBC,
through the reference reach, has an average slope of 0.7% and was classified as a Rosgen
"E4/C4" stream type. Maps showing the vicinity and site, as well as the reference reach
survey summary is shown on the following pages.
The UT to Back Creek reference reach is located northwest of Asheboro in Randolph
County.
The 712-foot reach is located upstream of the project site.
W
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

r

? ? ??l E C1

OGS Quad map showing the UTBC reference reach drainage area.
UT to Back Creek, cross-section 3, riffle, looking downstream
UT to Back Creek, cross-section 4, pool, looking downstream
v
UT to Back Creek, cross-section 5, pool, looking downstream
i
i
i
i
98
97.5
97
96.5
a 96
> 95.5
m
W 95
94.5
94
93.5
XS 1 Riffle UTBC
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Riffle
stream: 't =
location:
description:
height of instrument (ft): ?
of bank (ft) slo
-.
a7.4 i
96.47
95
93.99
93.85
94.13
94.47
94.77
95.72
97.4
97.59
97.34
96.95
96.58
97.52
97.36
97.43

I.W.
60
dimensions
12.5 x-section area 1.2 d mean
10.4 width 12.7 wet P
1.7 d max 1.0 h yd radi
3.6 bank ht 8.7 w/d ratio
150.0 W flood prone area 14.4 ent ratio
hydraulics
5.0 velocity ft/sec
63.1 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
0.89 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.68 shear velocity ft/sec
5.433 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
0.66 Froude number
7.5 friction factor u/u'
57.3 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
measured D84 mm
0.0 relative roughness 0.6 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
i
98
97
96
c
95
a?
w 94
93
92
XS 2 Pool UTBC

I

0 5 10 15
location:
description:
height of instrument (ft):
omit distance FS
notes ot. (ft) (ft)
ankfull top of bank s
4 T_'
94.15 95.45
dimensions
10.4 x-section area 1.0 d mean
10.1 width 11.2 wet P
1.8 d max 0.9 hyd radi
3.1 bank ht

hydraulics

0.03 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.12 shear velocity ft/sec
0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)

2.3 threshold rain size mm

20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
•
•
•
•
•
w
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
w
•
•
•
•
•
w
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
XS 3 Riffle UTBC
98
97
96
c
95
76
w 94
93
92
0
0
10 20 30 40
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
stream:
location:
description:
of instrument (ft):
3nce I FS

50 60 70
slope M) I "n"
94.75
94.32
93.13
93.44
95.47
95.41
95.22
ankfull top of be
94.3 95.16
dimensions
14.4 x-section area 0.9 d mean
16.1 width 18.0 wet P
1.4 d max 0.8 h d radi
2.2 bank ht 17.9 w/d ratio
150.0 W flood prone area 9.3 ent ratio
94.36
93.23
92.94
93.22
93.35
93.4
94.03
94.24
94.73
95.16
94.85
95.12
J
hydraulics
4.4 velocity ft/sec)
63.2 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
0.72 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.61 shear velocity ft/sec
3.534 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
0.67 Froude number
7.2 friction factor u/u*
45.9 threshold rain size mm
96.1 measured D84 mm
96.55
1 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 Eric. factor
96.3 0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

99
98
97
i
0 96
95
w
94
93
92
XS 4 Pool UTBC
0 10 20 30 40
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
secuur"
Po
o!
stream: _
location:
description:
height of instrument (ft) =
F

notes omit distance
pt. (ft) FS
(ft)
elevation FS
bankfull FS
top of ban
_ _ x 98.67 _:
98.15 95.14 96.03
• : t 96.17
96.03
95.48
94
93.15
92.94
94.68
95.14
95.17
95.03
96.37
96.36
96.21
50 60
dimensions
19.3 x-section area 1.5 d mean
13.0 width 15.5 wet P
2.2 d max 1.2 h yd radi
3.1 bank ht

hydraulics

0.04 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.14 shear velocity ft/sec
0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)

3.0 threshold rain size mm

96
95.5
95
94.5
94
-° 93.5
i4
93
W
92.5
92
91.5
91
XS 5 Pool UTBC

0 10 20 30 40
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
description:
height of instrument (ft): =

notes omit
pt. distance
(ft) FS
(ft)
elevation
_ 95.08
? 95.16
95.03
? 93.5
92.5
? 91.5
? 92.18
? 92.43
I ] 92.85
? 94.04
? 94.14
? 95.14
1 95.31
? = 95.31
^
? 95.20
n
50 60
dimensions
18.0 x-section area 1.4 d mean
13.0 width 15.0 wet P
2.5 d max 1.2 h yd radi
3.5 bank ht

hydraulics

0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocity ft/sec
0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)

9 9 threshold rain size mm

PONINUCHMI Pm ft . H Phift Stream: UT fo Back Creek Location: US f Project Sit.

Date:
WONEWYMMOM Bxck Creek
UT to Back Creek
100
98
++
96 XXX X)?0( X X

94
=-
.. r X

_ _ ?_ X XX
jKX I

{ } _
g2
w X X
qp
88
i
86 0
84
n 200 400 600 B00 1000 1200
l:i hNa -r 5H < BKF LTO3 Vis i-nB ?s
:Elevation BM
cross BS HI FS FS depth FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
notes sect?o? stal..,n - 100 TP 6ed water - - az?-th bed water sr( WS BKF LTOB RTOB
100 94.79 94.97 97 1,
- - 100 94.25 94.52 95.66 97,68
100 93.69 94 47
-- 100 - - -
100 94.14 94.42 95.19 97.51 97.35
100 94.04 94 35 95.36 97.12 96.75
100
100 93.85 94.17 95.19 96 89 96.77
'0057
'00 57
100.57 93 51
93 08 93 76
93.76 94 44
94.63 96 19
96.26 9617
96.22
100.57 93 94.59
100.57
100.57 92.96
92.92 93.76 94.72
94.76 96.02 96.37
100.57 92.8 93.75 95.68 96.18
100.57
99.32 _
_
99.32
99.32 93.33
92.85 93 71
93.07 94.65
94.26 95071
95.14 95 46
95.23
= 99 32 92.88 93 07 93.85
99.32 92.8 9289 9187 94.98 95.01
99.32 92.55 92.74 93.67
- 99.32 92.26 92.67 93.62 94.54 94 48
- - - - 99.32 92.33 92.51 93.61 94.6 94.38
-
- - - 99.32 91.66 92.16
- - 99.32 91.41 92.16 93.04
99.32
- 91.92 92.16 92.96 93.94 94.43
99 32
9745
97,45 ----- 91.04 91.35
97.45
97.45 90.43
90.02 91 34
92.71
93.73
--- -- 9745- 91.1 91.33 92.93 9397
97.45 90.65 92.47 93.34 93.85
9745 90.39 91.32 92.59 9348 93.82
9745 9 91.31 93.28 9367
97 45 90.82
--- 97.45 90.81
97.45 90.78
97.45 90.66 9337
97.45 1
982
-i 98.2

98.2 1 _

89.95

90.7 91 .6
9
91.93

93.49
93 48
98.2 69.7 90.7 92.24 93.23 93.34
98 2 6 90.7 92.13 93.49 93.42
_ 98.2 90.7
98.2 90.49
98.2
98.2 90.48
90.48
92.57 92.72
92.15
98.2 90.13
98.2 90.13 91.16 92.35 92 35
98.2 91.29 92.13 92.77
98.2- - -- ------ ---- 90.13
98.2
- - --
7H3
85.53
-
El
98.39
1
t

very fine sand 0.062
fine sand 0.13
medium sand 0.25
coarse sand 0.5
very coarse sand 1
very fine gravel 2
fine gravel 4
fine gravel 6
medium gravel 8
medium gravel 11
coarse gravel 16
coarse gravel 22
very coarse gravel 32
very coarse ravel 45
small cobble 64
medium cobble 90
large cobble 128
very large cobble 180
small boulder 256
small boulder 362
medium boulder 512
large boulder 1024
clay
0.13
0.25
0.5
1 #
2 100%
4 1 90%
6 3 #
8 1 80%
11 8 c
16 7 # 70%
22 7 c 60%
32 2
45 13 v 50%
64 10 0 40%
90 15
128 18 30%
180 5
256 4 20%
362 10%
512
1024 0%
Profile
Note: Comp
to 1+32
- 70% Riffle; 30% Pool
Pebble Count. UTBC
20
18
16
14 =3
C
12 Q
(D
10 °
8
m
6 N
4
2
0
2048 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
4096
particle size (mm)
tcle count: 94 M--cumulative % # of particles
6 based on size percent less than (mm) particle size distribution
sediment D16 D35 D50 D65 D84 D95 gradation geo mean std dev
articles only 12.269 35.45 53.7 79 114 172 3.2 37.4 3.0
based on percent by substrate type
total count: 100 total count silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock hardpan wood/det artificial
0% 0% 52% 42% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0%
•••?••••••••••••••••••••iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii••1
Pebble Count of Channel Reach Pebble Count,
Material Size Range (mm) Count UTBC
silt/clay 0 0.062 1
very fine sand 0.062 0.13 Profile Station 1+92 to 7+12
fine sand 0.13 0.25 Note: Composite Sample - 50% Riffle; 50% Pool
medium sand 0.25 0.5
coarse sand 0.5 1 Pebble Count, UTBC
very coarse sand 1 2 100°/° 16
very fine gravel 2 4 90% 14
fine gravel 4 6 3
fine gravel 6 8 5 80%
medium gravel 8 11 14 co ° _ 12
medium gravel 11 16 12 70 /o
:S c-
coarse giuvel 16 22 13 # 60°jo 10 Q
coarse gravel 22 32 8 ` m
very coarse gr, vel 32 45 9 a 50% ---- - 8
very coarse r :I 45 64 10 m °
small coL-,e 64 90 9 n 40% - 6
medium cobble 90 128 8 30%
large cobble 128 180 4 1 4
very large cobble 180 256 2 20% --
small boulder 256 362 10% 2
small boulder 362 512
medium boulder 512 1024 0% - - 0
large boulder 1024 2048 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
very large boulder 2048 4096 particle size (mm)
total particle count: 98 ?CUmulative % # of particles
bedrock 2 based on size percent less than (mm) particle size distribution
clay hardpan sediment D16 D35 D50 D65 D84 D95 gradation geo mean std dev
detritus/wood articles only 9.313 15.65 23.1 43 84 141 3.1 28.0 3.0
artificial based on percent by substrate type
total count: 100 total count silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock hardpan wood/det artificial
1% 0% 74% 23% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
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
ti
t
r
- C?
b

.t
?i
1
r?
a

Richland Creek, Moore County
The Richland Creek reference reach is located in Moore County, west of the town of
Carthage and upstream (west) of Mount Carmel Road on the Occoneechee Scout
Reservation. This 525-foot reach is a moderate sinuosity channel occurring within a late-
stage successional forested tract. Richland Creek, through the reference reach, has an
average slope of 1.2% and was classified as a Rosgen "C3/C4" stream type. Maps
showing the vicinity and site, as well as the reference reach survey summary is shown on
the following pages.
The Richland Creek reference reach is
west of Carthage in Moore County.
`fy
?S4sl-4?#?Y
The 525-foot reach is located upstream of Mount Carmel Road in a forested tract on the
Occoneechee Scout Reservation.

USGS Quad map showing the Richland Creek reference reach drainage area.
Richland Creek, cross-section 1, riffle, looking downstream
Richland Creek, cross-section 2, pool, looking downstream
Richland Creek, cross-section 3, riffle, looking downstream

XS 1 Riffle Richland Creek
101
100.5
100
99.5
99
0 98.5
> 98
w 97.5
97
96.5
96
95.5
0 10 20
30 40 50
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
60 70
80
Riffle
stream: '
location:
description: '
height of instrument (ft):
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning S
notes t. (ft) ft) elevation Lbankfull to of bank ft sloe (%) I "n"
LBKP 0 1 1.75 100.45
4.23 2.46 200.0 2.69 0.035
• : 100.01 97:-97 99.74
14 3.54 98.66
98.44
98.47
97.69
97
96.05
96.25
dimensions
21.2 x-section area 0.8 d mean
27.1 width 28.1 wet P
1.9 d max 0.8 h yd radi
3.7 bank ht 34.5 w/d ratio
200.0 W flood prone area 7.4 ent ratio
hydraulics
5.8 velocity ft/sec
122.6 dischar a rate, Q cfs
1.27 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.81 shear velocity ft/sec
7.598 unit stream power (lbs/fUsec)
1.32 Froude number
7.1 friction factor u/u*
115.0 threshold rain size mm
98.33
98.48 check from channel material
99.74 measured D84 mm
99.82 0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
96.45
96.58
96.59
96.55
97.08
97.47
97.97
97.84
97.97
96.42

XS 2 Pool Richland Creek
101
100
99
98
97
w 96
95
94
i
93
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
60 70 80
section: "
Pool
stream: - •
location:
i
description:
height of instrument ft:
omit distance FS FS FS channel
notes t. [ft) ft) elevation bankfull top of bank slo e %
5.44 4.27 '
Terrace 0 0 2.59 99.61
6 2.75 - 99.45 96776 97.93- - -
99.06
12 3.14
98.96
98.06
96.61
95.61
94.61
94.07
dimensions
35.6 x-section area 2.4 d mean
15.2 width 19.1 wet P
3.1 d max 1.9 h yd radi
4.3 bank ht &.4 .,'d
40 0-0
93.67
94.15
95.36
96.76
97.25
97.93
97.56
97.38
97.65
98.62
hydraulics
0.0
99
0.10 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.23 shear velocity ft/sec
0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)

0-.-G
6.8 threshold rain size mm
99.72
- _ (?8 8-9 fr(? . fr.ricr
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
101
100
99
98
c 97
0 96
W 95
94
93
92
91
XS 3 Riffle Richland Creek
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
section:
Riffle
stream: -
location:
description:
height of instrument ft:
omit distance FS ;FS F;
notes pt. ft) (ft elevation baull to of
96.51
T-- - 4T 71113 01 0R - -. 01 01 or
96.06
94.53
94.09
93.91
93.21
92.03
92.06
91.95
92.16
92.35
93.19
94.59
95.34
95.99
96.29
97.11
100.38
70 80 90
«n»
dimensions
22.3 x-section area 1.5 d mean
14.8 width 16.6 wet P
2.0 d max 1.3 h yd radi
3.4 bank ht 9.8 w/d ratio
150.0 W flood prone area 10.1 ent ratio
hydraulics
6.8 velocity fUsec
151.4 discharge rate, Q cfs
1.45 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.86 shear velocity fUsec
11.053 unit stream power (lbs/fUsec)
0.95 Froude number
7.9 friction factor u/u*
449:8 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
measured D84 mm
0relative rou hness 00 fric. factor
Mannin 's n from channel material
Richland Creek

IU4
102 I f

100
t

- I

I
I
98 -

a X
X

96 X x yp X + }

w •-'
X ' -

94 - X X I
I X + ! j
I X X ',.
92
I el i l e? I i I e?
90
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Channel Distance (ft) -f md watersd X BKF + LTOB -A-WS - RT08 A z-ae ion
levation
-- cross BS HI FS F3 depth PS ;;_ ;, FS..._ =_.
...ES... _. AZ ELE
V ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
rates - section ste0on 105.28 TP (fed 1va0er TO
•: R•: bed
aamutlf ureter er/ WS BKF LT08 RTOB
-NOR- 0 105.28 97.95 98.16 99.42 101.47
HOP 16 105.28 8.6 8.33
96.68
96.95
MP
105.28 9.35 8.33
95.93
96.95
--
33 105.28 7.56
97.72

: 105.28 71

:- 8.37
96.57
96.91
G
lde 52
105.28 111 8.37 7A7
96.17
96.91
97.81
NOR 68.5
105.28 8:95 IIA2 7.49 3.68 6.58
96.33
96.88
97.79
101.8
99.7
Hop 74 105.28 9.00 8.44
96.2
96.84
Pool 94
105.28 9 .54 " 7.36
95.74
96.84
97.42
105.28 : 96.68 96.83
P-1 122
105.28 1
3. 51
94.89
96.77
Pool 139 105.28 10.16 8.55 7.59 3.88
95.12
96.73
97.69
99.4
NOR 151
105.28 8.73 8.54
96.55
96.74
105.28
TIR 16
105.28 9.41 9.1
95.67
96.18
- 105.28 95.79 96.16 97.19 99.35
HOP 200 105.28 10.24 9.86 3.68
95.04
95.42
96.8
-
• 105.28 9.54
6.46 102.2
Run 208
102.2 7.3 6.8 SAS 3.71
94.9
95.4
96.75
98.49
HOP 222 102.2 7.26 11 4,6
:-
7 94.94 95.4 96.09 97.44
MP XS
2 233
102.2 8.53 44 4.14 4.
27
93.67
95.4
86.76
98.06
97.93
-
Glide 245
102.2 7.66 6.9 5,59 5.26
94.54
95.4
96.61
96.94
NOR 255
102.2 7.04 6.93 5.51
95.16
95.37
96.69
Riffle 268
102.2 7.68 7.36 6.03
94.52
94.84
96.17
284 102.2 7.94 7.54 6.26
94.3fi
94.66
95.94
Run 290
102.2 7.94 7 ' ST 5.93
94.26
94.63
95.27
300
102.2 8 .3 7--
93.9
94.34
TP2
102.2 7.2
4-66
99.66 -
Riffle 301 99.66 94.08 94.36

pool 318 99.66
6.59
5.93 4.96 2.95 93.07 93.73 94.7 96.71

iffle/RunISR 358 99.66
7.07
6.54 5.06 92.59 93.12 94.6
pool 380
99.66 7.55 5,7
92.1
92.98
-Rffft-- 400 99.6fi 7A6 6.85 5.65
92.2
92.81
94
HOP 430 99.66 7.94 6.94
91.72
92.72
Pool 453 99.66 7.92 6.92 5.43 2.95 4.32
91.74
92.74
94.23
96.71
95.34
NOR 458 99.66 7.53 7
92.13
92.66
RUH* X3 3 471 99.66
Riffla 480 9MUME 7.82 7.34
91.84
92.32
Rifft 495 99.66 7.95 7.49 6.22 4.41
91.71
92.17
93.44
95.25
TIR 514 99.66 8.42 7 , 97 6.6 5.21
91.24
91.69
93.06
94.45

,-mail Bend 525
NEW 9.71 .99
90.95
91.67
99.66 6.81

101.28
8.43

...

...<.

.:._._
101.28
--------------
silt/claN 0 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 0.13
fine sand 0.13 0.25
medium sand 0.25 0.5
coarse sand 0.5 1
very coarse sand 1 2
very fine gravel 2 4
fine gravel 4 6
fine gravel 6 8
medium gravel 8 11
medium gravel 11 16 1
coarse gravel 16 22 1
coarse gravel 22 32 4
very coarse gravel 32 45 11
very coarse ravel 45 64 15
small cobble 64 90 14
medium cobble 90 128 28
large cobble 128 180 16
very large cobble 180 256 9
small boulder 256 362 1
small boulder 362 512
medium boulder 512 1024
large boulder 1024 2048
ve lar a boulder 2048 4096
total particle count: 100
Pebble
Note: Richland Creek XS 1
100%
I I !'
90%
80%
t 70% -? -
i
c 60% - 1 -
y 50% _
20% _._ ; _.... _.
0%
0.01
bedrock based on
clay, hardpan sediment
Jetritus/wood articles on
artificial based on
total count: 100 total count
30
25
20 c
Cr
15 °
v
10 m
N
5
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
?-Cumulative % - # of particles

size percent less than (mm) particle size distribution
D16 D35 D50 065 D84 D95 gradation geo mean std dev
43.627 68.85 94.6 114 158 219 1.9 83.1 1.9
percent by substrate type
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock hardpan wood/det artificial
0% 0% 32% 67% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
------------
-- -----------
silt/clay 0 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 0.13
fine sand 0.13 0.25
medium sand 0.25 0.5
coarse sand 0.5 1 3
very coarse sand 1 2 4
very fine gravel 2 4 5
fine gravel 4 6 5
fine gravel 6 8 4
medium gravel 8 11 5
medium gravel 11 16 3
coarse gravel 16 22 3
coarse gravel 22 32 7
very coarse gravel 32 45 1
very coarse ravel 45 64 8
small cobble 64 90 7
medium cobble 90 128 14
large cobble 128 180 9
very large cobble 180 256 11
small boulder 256 362 3
small boulder 362 512 1
medium boulder 512 1024
large boulder 1024 2048
very large boulder 2048 4096
total particle count: 93
clay
total count: 103
Pebble
100%
90%
80%
r 70%
c 60%
w
50%
U
n 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
16
14
12
C
10 Q
N
1
8 OR
V
d
6 8
lV
N
4
2
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
--*-cumulative % • # of particles
based on size percent less than (mm) particle size distribution
sediment D16 D35 D50 D65 D84 D95 gradation geo mean std dev
articles only 5.052 22.66 59.9 103 181 251 7.4 30.2 6.0
based on percent by substrate type
total count silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock hardpan wood/det artificial
0% 7% 40% 40% 4% 10% 0% 0% 0%
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
--------------
Pebble Count of Channel Reach
Material Size Range (mm) Cour
silt/clay 0 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 0.13
fine sand 0.13 0.25
medium sand 0.25 0.5
coarse sand 0.5 1
very coarse sand 1 2
very fine gravel 2 4 2
fine gravel 4 6 1
fine gravel 6 8 3
medium gravel 8 11 8
medium gravel 11 16 2
coarse gravel 16 22 4
coarse gravel 22 32 5
very coarse gravel 32 45 15
very coarse ravel 45 64 10
small cobble 64 90 16
medium cobble 90 128 15
large cobble 128 180 6
very large cobble 180 256 13
small boulder 256 362
small boulder 362 512
medium boulder 512 1024
large boulder 1024 2048
very larae boulder 2048 4096
total particle count: 100
clay
total count: 100
100%
90%
80%
c
t 70%
c 60%
w
50%
0 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Note: I Richland Creek XS 3
18
16
14
12 3
Cr
10 `I
0
8 m
6 m
4
2
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
'*-cumulative % • # of particles
ed on size percent less than (mm) particle size distribution
iment D16 D35 D50 D65 D84 D95 gradation geo mean std dev
icles only 16.000 40.17 64.0 88 152 224 3.2 49.3 3.1
ed on percent by substrate type
I count silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock hardpan wood/det artificial
0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
n man(
_'``._ '?,. - - --------?? _' ._-ram- •f?
I tJ ' r
l _ _ t
s..

let:
..?77 ,141 ! }`
i.
v

.14

I
4
z
V
b V__

Appendix F
McCain Site, Randolph Co
Sediment Sampling and Entrainment at the Un-named Tributary to Back Creek
Four pebble counts were taken in the project reaches and two pebble counts taken in the upstream
. reference reach. Five bed samples were taken in the project reaches, both surface & subsurface at
each location. Two bar samples were taken; one side and one point. Two scour chains, a rain gage
and two flow gages were installed.

Observations
From the pebble counts, there are variations in the channel bed, with a noticeable trend to finer beds
. in the downstream direction. This would make sense for a watershed and geological point of view.
. The upper reaches are dominated by channery deposits from tributaries that the existing channel has
cut through. The lower reach is close to the Back Creek confluence and would be dominated by
backwater effects from the main channel, as the Back Creek Lake reservoir is just downstream.
i
Of the channel bed samples, the one at XS3 (SC2) does not follow the trend of downstream fining in
the subsurface sample. XS3 has all the indications of a cattle trod streambed. The armour ratio
between the surface and subsurface sample is very low. This occurs when the cattle hooves mix the
channel bed, which leads to the loss of fines from the subsurface. There are insignificant differences
between these two samples, and these samples do not fall within the trend of the other three bed
samples or the four pebble counts. The channel samples from SC 1 also show sign of being heavily
trodded. Having only two sample immediately showing significant cattle damage is actually quite
amazing considering the heard at the project site.
The bed samples have several significant trends. First there is a downstream fining. Second, the
D84 of the subsurface sample is close to the D50 of the surface sample indicating that the D50 of the
channel bed should be mobilized during bankfull events. The armour ratio of the three bed samples
range from 2.1 to 2.8 (increasing downsteam) which is another indication that the channel bed
surface is active at bankfull flows. An active bed is one where the subsurface is a good indication of
the bedload sediment transport in the stream system. Third, while there are decent amounts of sand
in the subsurface, ranging from 11% to 25%, there is no indication in the pebble counts or bed
surface bulk samples of any sand at all. However, all of the bar samples have high sand content,
ranging from 29% to 66%. Therefore the channel bed does not record the sand transport that is
obvious in the system.
There are two broad methods of sediment transport analysis developed by Gilbert in 1914, first to
look at the entire channel bed in sediment transport modeling, or to look at the competency of the
channel to move the largest observed in sediment transport.
When four of the channel bed samples are subjected to entire bed sediment transport modeling, there
are several indicators that the surface and subsurface are not in balance. Such widespread
inconsistencies point to the fact that all of the sample locations are effected by cattle trodding. The
two scour chain sites, looked the most alluvial and en _:st to install a chain. However by being the
most alluvial, the cattle trodding had the highcst impacts. The less alluvial sites were more
armoured and less likely to be mixed. However, the mixing that did occur was enough to unbalance
the surface and subsurface samples. This natural balance was examined in two ways, first: could the

Appendix F McCain Site, Randolph Co
surface and subsurface samples cross predict sediment transport rates with shear stress, and second:
could the surface and subsurface samples predict the other's D50 with shear stress.

- When the channel samples were modeled for the sediment transport rates, only two spots show
reasonable results that however had shallower flow depths than had been expected. When the
w modeling was examined for the D50 balance most results were absurdly high or low and the best
results were at the same two spots as before and they produced deeper flow depths than the previous
• analysis.
The sediment transport analysis based on the entrainment of the largest particles thought to be in
motion was attempted in three ways. First scour chains were installed at two sites, however the
channel beds seem to have mixed and then compacted by the cattle. After several bankfull events,
there still had not been any scour and redeposit at these two locations. No sampling could be
performed this way.
- When the channel bed samples were examined directly, the largest particles in the channel were all
outside of the valid range of any of Andrew's (1983, 1994) equations. When the Wilcock-Crowe
(2003) equation was used, it consistently produced shear result indicating that out of bank flow
• events are required to move these particle sizes.
Finally when the bar samples were compared to the channel beds, only the point bar sample had
! reasonable results. Upstream at XS 1, the bar sample was 2/3rds sand and the channel bed was
- extremely narrowly sorted. This is an indication of extreme local turbulence washing the channel
- bed into a narrow gradation range and suspending the sand into the flow. The side bar sample would
then be more representative of the local wash load and not the bed load, so it could not be used.
Downstream at XS3, the point bar sample was somewhat unique in the channel system because there
• were very few well-developed point bars. When the D84 of the point bar was compared to the
channel bed D50 it produced a flow depth that matched the reference reach and regional curve
expectation.
. Conclusions
Because of the trampled condition of SCI & XS3, these sampled subsurfaces cannot be used in any
meaningful way in a sediment transport analysis.
Because of the absence of sand in the surface bulk samples, a full range sediment transport analysis
is not possible from these samples. These samples may be used in an entrainment type calculation of
the largest particle in motion. However, the recent methods of Dave Rosgen (to perform these
. calculations using Andrews equations) do not fit the data set from the McCain property very well.
w The fact that sand is missing in the streambed is an indication that this tributary primarily acts as a
a transport reach. It is likely that this project site is supply limited for the sand fraction. Meaning that
. th ? -pstream supply of sand will cut off before the project's reaches' capability of transport this
sand. As a consequence, the channel bed will wash clean of sand and store this last of the sand
transport in the shallow pool locations as the stream flow recedes after each bankfull flow event.
a Because this stream acts so much like a transport channel, the channel bed does not truly represent a

Appendix F
McCain Site, Randolph Co
regime channel, therefore it's not surprising that the sediment transport parameters will fall outside
of normal alluvial stream channel characteristics.
The entrainment calculation is based on assessing the largest particle known to be transported during
bankfull events. However these particle sizes are much larger than the D50 of the channel bed.
Therefore, the use of "near equal mobility" functions, like Andrew's (1983, 1994) equations, are not
possible because the data exceeds the 1.3 x D50 upper size limitation of these equations. Only XS 1
comes close to the published valid range for Andrew's equation and this location sowed signs of
extreme turbulence. For the data range of the McCain site, a "near no-hiding" function, like the
Wilcock-Crowe (2003) equations, are appropriate.
The "near no-hiding" reference shear stress for mobility from the Wilcock-Crowe function is:
0.67
DI
Zri - zrs50
(Ds50)
where:
r* = 0.036
for a gravel bed.
Zrs5o = Zrm (ps - P)gDsso
Based on the bar samples at XS3, a point shear velocity of 0.201 m/s (0.66 fps)was selected for the
channel design. When this shear velocity was combined with a design Q of around 2.834 m3/s (100
cfs), four reaches with differing channel gradients produced cross sectional geometry that fit well
with the range of geometry observed in the reference reach. When the hydraulic radius and average
channel gradient from the two steepest reaches was examined, the design point shear stress was
converted back to an average shear stress of 0.1565 m/s. This agreed amazing well with the average
shear stress of 0.1566 m/s from the entrainment calculations, shown below.
Andrews, E.D. (1983). "Entrainment of Gravel from Natural Sorted Riverbed Material," Geologic
Society of America Bulletin 94, 1225-1231.
Andrews, E.D. (1994). "Marginal Bedload in a Gravel-Bed Stream, Sage Hen Creek, California,"
Water Resources Research, 30, 2241-2250
Wilcock, P.R. and Crowe, J.C. (2003). "Surface-Based Transpo?. Model for Mixed-Size Sediment",
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 129(2), pp 120-128.
4
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
¦
Appendix F
McCain Sediment Entrainment Calculations
Reach 1
Riffle/Bar
D50= 45.9
D84= 90.0
D^50= 23.1
Di= 63.5
Di2= 38.1
Pavement/Sub pavement
D50= 40.6
D84= 49.3
D^50= 19.3
Di= 57.2
Di2= 47.6
Riffle D50
Riffle D84
Bar D50
Bar Largest
Bar 2nd Largest
Pavement D50
Pavement D84
Subpavement D50
Subpavement Largest
Subpavement 2nd Largest
McCain Site, Randolph Co
Reach 2
D50= 25.9 Riffle D50
D84= 83.0 Riffle D84
D^50= Bar D50
Di= Bar Largest
Di2= Bar 2nd Largest
Paveme nt/Su bpavem ent
D50= 25.2 Pavement D50
D84= 43.4 Pavement D84
D^50= 10.5 Subpavement D50
Di= 57.2 Subpavement Largest
Di2= 44.5 Subpavement 2nd Lar
Ratio of largest to surface D50 Ratio of largest to surface D50
1.38 Bar Largest 0.00 Bar Largest
0.83 Bar 2nd Largest 0.00 -- Bar 2nd Largest
1.25 Subpavement Largest 2.21 Subpavement Largest
1.04 Subpavement 2nd Largest 1.72 Subpavement 2nd Largest
0.0360 Tc*, 50 0.0360 Tc*, 50
Pa 42.9566 Tc,50 Pa 24.2391 Tc,50
Shear Stress Levels Shear Stress Levels
Pa 47.7343 Bar Largest Pa 0.0000 Bar Largest
Pa 41.1279 Bar 2nd Largest Pa 0.0000 Bar 2nd Largest
Pa 45.8893 Subpavement Largest Pa 34.9408 Subpavement Largest
Pa 43.3812 Subpavement 2nd Largest Pa 29.7961 Subpavement 2nd Largest
Ibs/ft2 1.00 Bar Largest Ibs/ft2 0.00 Bar Largest
Ibs/ft2 0.86 Bar 2nd Largest Ibs/ft2 0.00 Bar 2nd Largest
Ibs/ft2 0.96 Subpavement Largest Ibs/ft2 0.73 Subpavement Largest
Ibs/ft2 0.91 Sub pavement 2nd Largest Ibs/ft2 0.62 Sub pavement 2nd Largest
5

Appendix F
McCain Sediment Entrainment Calculations
McCain Site, Randolph Co
Reach 3 Reach 4
Riffle/Bar Riffle/Bar
D50= 25.4 Riffle D50 D50= 11.6 Riffle D50
D84= 47.9 Riffle D84 D84= 43.0 Riffle D84
D^50= 9.2 Bar D50 D^50= Bar D50
Di= 63.5 Bar Largest Di= Bar Largest
Di2= 38.1 Bar 2nd Largest Di2= Bar 2nd Largest
Pavement/Subpavement Pavement/Subpavement
D50= 25.4 Pavement D50 D50= 17.4 Pavement D50
D84= 47.9 Pavement D84 D84= 26.3 Pavement D84
D^50= 19.6 Subpavement D50 D^50= 6.1 Subpavement D50
Di= 50.8 Subpavement Largest Di= 38.1 Subpavement Largest
Di2= 38.1 Subpavement 2nd Largest Di2= 38.1 Subpavement 2nd Largest
Ratio of largest to surface D50 Ratio of largest to surface D50
2.50 Bar Largest 0.00 Bar Largest
1.50 Bar 2nd Largest 0.00 Bar 2nd Largest
2.00 Subpavement Largest 3.28 Subpavement Largest
1.50 Subpavement 2nd Largest 3.28 Subpavement 2nd Largest
0.0360 Tc*, 50 0.0360 Tc*, 50
Pa 23.7712 Tc,50 Pa 10.8561 Tc,50
Shear Stress Levels Shear Stress Levels
Pa 37.7385 Bar Largest Pa 0.0000 Bar Largest
Pa 27.3403 Bar 2nd Largest Pa 0.0000 Bar 2nd Largest
Pa 32.0142 Subpavement Largest Pa 21.9185 Subpavement Largest
Pa 27.3403 Subpavement 2nd Largest Pa 21.9185 Subpavement 2nd Largest
Ibs/ft2 0.79 Bar Largest Ibs/ft2 0.00 Bar Largest
Ibs/ft2 0.57 Bar 2nd Largest Ibs/ft2 0.00 Bar 2nd Largest
Ibs/ft2 0.67 Subpavement Largest Ibs/ft2 0.46 Subpavement Largest
Ibs/ft2 0.57 Sub pavement 2nd Lar est Ibs/ft2 0.46 Sub pavement 2nd Lar est
6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix F
McCain Sediment Entrainment Calculations
Reach 3
Riffle/Bar
D50= 25.4
D84= 47.9
D^50= 9.2
Di= 63.5
Di2= 38.1
Pavement/Subpavement
D50= 25.4
D84= 47.9
D^50= 19.6
Di= 50.8
Di2= 38.1
Riffle D50
Riffle D84
Bar D50
Bar Largest
Bar 2nd Largest
Pavement D50
Pavement D84
Subpavement D50
Subpavement Largest
Subpavement 2nd Lar
Point Bar Comparison
- - 28.4 D84 point bar
mm 28.4
Pa 24.5258
lbs/ft2 0.512
m/s 0.1566 u*
ft/s 0.5137
slope 0.38% average
m 0.66 depth
ft 2.16
McCain Site, Randolph Co
7
s
r
Gauge 1 Riffle UT to Back Creek
105
104
103-
102-
101 = 100
) 99
w 98
97
96
95
__ - - __ -
- - - - - - - - -__
- - - - -
- - - - - -

-
-- --- - - - - - - - -
------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- ----- r ---- -1--- --- - - - -
--- -
- --- ----
-- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -- - -- -

-- - ---- - -- --
- -- -- ---- - ----- --- ---
-L i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Iiiii L:
_.
-
F- --'
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
---_-• Riffle
stream:
location:.
description: =
height of instrument (ft : 1
omit distance FS
notes nt_ fftl i (ft) alev
99.56
99.72
99.7
99.47
99.41
99.4
99.44
99.33
99.61
100.14
100.54
99.87
96.59
96.15
95.79
95.85
95.91
96.23
98.2
99.56
99.85
100.54
101.37
bankfull to of ba
98.55 99.56
70 80 90
"n"
dimensions
24.5 x-section area 2.2 d mean
11.0 width 13.8 wet P
2.8 d max 1.8 h yd radi
3.8 bank ht 4.9 w/d ratio
100.0 W flood prone area 9.1 ent ratio
hydraulics
5.1 velocity ft/sec
125.8 discharge rate, Q cfs
0.55 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.53 shear velocity ft/sec
3.576 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
0.37 Froude number
9.6 friction factor u/u*
34.4 threshold rain size (mm_
11check from channel matenal
measured D84 mm
7.60rou hness 0.0 Eric. factor
G Mannin 's n from channel material
98
97.5
97
`o
M 96.5
96
95.5
0
UTBC
50 100 150 200 250 300
Channel Distance (R) —.—hee watersrl X Terrace WS • BKF p x -section
TMS

i
105
104
103
102
101
5 100
io
99
j w
98
97
96
95
Gauge 2 Riffle LIT to Back Creek
---- -- -- - ---- -, - --- --- ---- ------- -- ---- ----- -

___
= - - - - - - - - -
t= __-_- -__ - - -
--- - -- - = r --- -- - -- _-- -- -- -- -- --- -
- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----
___+- --_ t 7711
----- ---------

------- -- ----- r------ ; --------: ---

--
- _
?_ -_--
- -- - 7 7 ---
- - - -
- -
- -- - - - - - -
-- ----
- --
-- - - -?- ? - - -- - -- ------ -- - - -- --- ---, ----
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
stream:
location:
description:
of instrument (ft):
I omit
notes pt.
elevation
98.99
98.97
99.05
98.89
99.16
99.35
99.35
95.2
95.27
95.35
95.3
95.16
95.53
98.29
99.52
100.92
100.81
100.33
100.51
100.92
bankfull to of bank ft
8.3 6.6 200 .0
97.65 99.35 .
70 80
.n. 11
dimensions
24.4 x-section area 2.2 d mean
11.2 width 14.4 wet P
2.5 d max 1.7 h yd radi
4.2 bank ht 5.1 w/d ratio
200.0 W flood prone area 17.9 ent ratio
hydraulics
5.4 velocity ft/sec
133.0 discharge rate, Q cfs
0.63 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.57 shear velocity ft/sec
4.463 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
0.42 Froude number
9.5 friction factor u/u*
39.9 threshold rain size mm
check rom channel material
measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

+f.("'1,ti SVeam: Location:
Watershed: Back Date:
UTBC
96.5

96

95.5

0 95
l0
?
f
-
I I
I
I
1 I
I
1
I
1
I
1 '
W I 1 1 ; 1 1 I 1
94
5-
.
94
?.-

93.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Channel Distance (ft) F- -bed water srf X Terrace WS a BKF - - p x.section
+ ? :Elevation BM
cross BS HI FS depth FS FS FS FS AZ ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV ELEV
notes section station 105.95 TP bad water BKIF Terrace WS
azimuth bed
water srf
BKF
Terrace
WS
--
+ 105.95 10.18 9.84
95.77
96.11
20 105.95 10.52 10.01
95.43
95.94
• 0 105.95 10J9 9.99
95.16
95.96
105.95
• + 1 105.95 10.43 + 95.52 95.8
79 105.95 10.71 10.28
95.24
95.67
XS Tape 81
105.95
Gauge 2 $1.7
105.95
++ 105.95 10.79 + 95.16 95.58
,I We Crossing + 105.95
12
+
105.95

11.36

10.89
94.59
95.06
A Jam
Debris
125
105.95
Debris Jam 135
105.95
140
105.95 11.91 1111.25
94.04
94.7
155
105.95 11.38 1111.28
94.57
94.67

McCain
3.5
3
2.5
2
a? 1.5
in
- - - - Gauge 1
-----Rainfall
Gauge 2
1
0.5
0
-0.5 ' T ;
5/13/2004 6/2/2004 0:00 6/22/2004 7/12/2004 8/1/2004 0:00 8/21/2004 9/10/2004 9/30/2004 10/20/2004
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00
Date Time
?••s•••••s•••••••v•vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv•••???•???
McCain
3.5
3
2.5
2
v
1.5
M
U)
1
0.5
0
-0.5
5/23/2004 5/25/2004 5/27/2004 5/29/2004 5/31/2004 6/2/2004 6/4/2004 6/6/2004 6/8/2004 6/10/2004
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00
Date Time
- • - - Gauge 1
Gauge 2
• - - Rainfall
--------- --------- --------
McCain Site
4
3.5
3
2.5
$ 2
d
a?
U) 1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 -1 i
9/20/2004 9/30/2004 10/10/200 10/20/200 10/30/200 11/9/2004 11/19/200 11/29/200 12/9/2004 12/19/200 12/29/200
0:00 0:00 4 0:00 4 0:00 4 0:00 0:00 4 0:00 4 0:00 0:00 4 0:00 4 0:00
Date Time
Gauge 1
- - - - Gauge 2
- - - - Rainfall
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scour Chain 1 Riffle LIT to Back Creek
104
102
100
0 98
m
i 96
w
94
92
90
- ,-- - - ----? - -- - - - - -- ---- --

- -- --- - - -
- -- -
- - - - - - - - - - - --
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -- - -- - -- ? --- ---- -- - - -- - _ ;; _= _ ___ _;_
---- ------------ ------------- ------------ -----

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- --
0
5 10 15 20
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
25 30
section: Scour Chain 1
Riffle
stream: Relevati location: dscription:
height of instrument (ft :
omit distance F;F;s; FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes . ft ft of bank ft s loe % n1LBKPTop: • = 3.5 654 9.33
LEW 5.6 9.77
96.18
95.74
96.21
96.6
96.37
95.68
96.33
99.33
dimensions
25.4 x-section area 1.6 d mean
15.9 width 18.1 wet P
2.3 d max 1.4 h yd radi
3.7 bank ht 10.0 w/d ratio
0.0 W flood prone area 0.0 ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0 velocity ft/sec
0.0 discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocity ft/sec
0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u*
9 9 threshold rain size mm
check rom channel material
measured D84 mm
0.0 relative rough ess 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material
W
I
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• I
i
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IMJ(01---t-•0-0iD n
Scour Chain 2 Riffle LIT to Back Creek
104
102 --- --- --- ---:-- -- --- ---------
--- -- -----------
------------ --- --- ----
100 --- --- --- -- -- - --
- -_-- --- - -- -
--- -- --- ----------- ------
o 98 -
----_- --- --- --- - ----- -------- -
96 -
w --------- --------- ---------- -- ---
94 - - ------------------ --------------
92
----------------------
90
0 5 10 15
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
section:
Riffle
stream: = .
location: =
description:
height of instrument ft :
omit distance FS
notes t. ft ft elevation
• • 0 7.39
-BKP 95.93

-TOB 7.54 95.78
4.2 • 92.62
10.97 92.35
• ' 77 92.64
-hain 8.6 92.88
= = 12 10.05 93.27
18 8.42 94.9
XBKP • • 95.37
bankfull to of ba
94.82 95.78
20 25
W fpa channel Manning's
(ft) slooe (%) - "n"
dimensions
21.1 x-section area 1.5
14.3 width 16.2
2.5 d max 1.3 E
3.4 bank ht 9.8

0.0
W flood prone area
0.0 enL[a2j!2?1
hydraulics

0.0 velocity ft/sec
0.0 discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocity ft/sec
0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u*
9 8 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
measured D84 mm
0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 0 Mannin 's n from channel material

_.._ I I? I? I I I
T?"T
1 I I I I I I ' I I I I I I

I V I I I I. 1 1

I -. 1 i 1:'.I 1 9 1 I

I?I I I I. I ?l I I

I I I f 1 11 I I V I I I
.__.-•--r-'r-7-T7
I I I I I Ir
I I 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 I I I'...I I I I I I 1 l i l; l l I V I I I I
1 I I I I I I V I I I I_ I -: 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 ?: i l l I 1 1 1 1 1.
I I I I I.I I I l.; 11 1 1 1 1 1 1
---r--r--"r-i-`r IT
1 I I 1 9 1
1 --- --r-'-r r-r?
V I I I ---r---r -r??
I
? r-r?-
j +---I-. .-r-,-• _---r-rTr

rT
-'T'1-r
-"
1 I -
1
1 I
-T-... 1 -T'-T-f 1 9 1
TT I

? I 1 1 1 1 1 1
"-ITrrT
- 1 1 1 1 1 1
-T' TIr
I I 1 1 1 11 I 1 1' I'1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I'
I 1 I' l l l I ( I I I I I I I I I i l l 1 1 1 ! I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I l l l l 11 I
• I ?:I I I Ij 1 I I l l f l l I I 1 1 1I.
-'_.-'f-i'-rTfTtY. -. ?
"_-r I-r .-..._T i---T-Trt Y"-t1T
I 1 I I 111 'I V I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I.

,'. I ' 11 i I I I I,. ...I I I. 1'I I ; 1 I I' I I I I I I t I I I ? _ ,.

i; I 1 I rl I I
'. 1 I III I TY...?
I I I I I
I.I I
I
I 1 1 1 1 11 T_I_.r-FT.
I I- V I I I
1 I I V I I I 1'.I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 11 I 1 1 I i I.I I I I 1 1 1 11.
1 I I I l l i f I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I V I I I I I i l l l
I I I l l l
I
1 1 1 1 1 I V I I I I I V I I I I I I i l

1 I I 11 11

I I I hill
? I I I'I I I

I Iilll
I I r l l

1 1'I II l-f. I
l 11 I
rr-T
III? -----
I
?---r-
I Y"-ITt"TTi.
I I 1 1 1 11
-r--r-r-rrrr
I I1111I ..

--
I 1 1 1 1 1 i.,
'--r--I-1--r7....
1 V I II'.
I I I I I I I 1 I I 11 1 I I 1 1 1 I I l i I I I I i l l l I I I I I I
'
I I 11 111

". 1 I I l i I I I.1?I

I I I 1 1 1 1

1 I I 1 11 I
..T'
I 1 11111
7"T rTrI
I I I I I I I 1 1 11
-r-rr
I I I I I I

I I I- I I.I
I I I I I 1 1
I_ 1 I 11 1 I

? I 1 1 1 11 I
I I 1 1 1 1 1

I V I I I- I I I
I I V

1 I_
i
-? 1? I
I I I I I I I-I I I
I 1 l
I I I I
I I L I I

_ ! V I I I I

1 1 I I I I 1
I I I I
I I I ; I I
1
I I I111
I 1 I I: I I I I ? I ( I I I I
1 1 1 1 1 1
! I I I 1 1 1 l I i
I
1 I I I
I ?, I I I I I I ' 1
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I
I t 1 1 1
f I V I I I
I I I L I I I

I I V I I I I I I I I I l

I I t l l l l I 1 V

I I
V I I I I 11 I ! II
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I I I

I
I ( I I I I

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

?. I
I 1 1 1 1 I 1 V I I I
I 1 1 1 1 1
1T _TT_7...-f7"1 T-__T _.I-. T__ .-.r_•_i Tl-17-T
111 ', I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I? 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
-I X111 1 1111 I I.I I II 1111 1 1 IIII
I
1 1 1 I '. 1 1' 1 I
1 I I I I I 11
1- I I l i l l l I I ( I I I I
. I I. _.I 1 11
? I I I I I I I I I 1 1
I I I I
I I I I 1 1 1
I I 1
I I
1 1
1
I I I 'I I I
I l t f 1 11
I I i t I I 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1'II I'
I I 1 1 1 I I
1 j
1
I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I
I 11I.'! I I I 11 tV I I I 11 .11111 1 I_,II I I I 111111

T- -I . T
I I l i l l l
".T-.TfTI
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
-
I 1. I I 111
r
1 1' I. I1 I I
1 1 I
-f-
I 1 1 1 1
II 1,

1 1 1
I

1
r I f 1"1''71'
rrrt.
I I I 1 DI1
1 1 11 11'
-r.1 1 r_I '.
1 1'1 I I I'.
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 111 1 I I'I I 111 I I I I 11'
I I 11 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I 1 1 1 1 I.

---
-
--
-
- I I I I I

-
-
-
-
- I 1 1 I

?-
- I I
t
1 I t I I I I I
,
r
T
r
r
I I I I I I I I ?
T
r
n
rr
I I I I I I I r
?-
I
I 1 I ?rl

1 -.._.__....-1- r--r-r-r-r'rr.
I 1 I ._ - r-r -r._r..rt-
I 1 I I I I I

I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 -T -T
? 11 I r 1 V
I I I I
- , Tr
I1
1 ._-l-
( r -T-7
I l i l l l l TT-Tf.. .
? I l f II I'.
I I I i l l l l I I I 1 I I I I I I II i I ..I.., I 111 1 I 1 I 1 I'
1 1 I I I I I
-i
I I 1 1 1 1 11 I I 111

1• I I I I I I.. I I I

I I I I<.I 1 1
Y"t
I I I
..-r.-
-. I I I I I
TT.?_..1?_
I I I 1 t I I I I I

I I I I I I I

I 1 I''! I I I
---T-r-rte'--1
1 I I I I I 11 ".. 1 I I:I I

? 1 1 1 1 1 1 - I'I

I I i I I 111 -. I
r --
I I I I 'I 1 I
--r-
I I ; I I I t{ ?
---,-"rr?-rr-r-rl
I I I I I I I.1
I 1 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I''1 I '.. I I I I I I I 11.?
I I ( I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I i I 1 111
I l 1 1 1
^-7-1 -T-T- '"_ITI
I 1 1 1 1
-T-f-I-r
1 I 1 I:i I I I 1 1 1 1
'1-_T 1
I 1 1 1 1 1
'TT
I ( I I I I I 1 1 1 1

I 11
-l `T-T'T,
I 1 I l l 1 11

I I
7
l l t !

1
-T
I I I

I I
TTTI'"1
I I I I I I I. I I I I I I

1 1 1 1
TT
I I I I I I I'
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I. 11 1111.1

I I i 1 1 1 111111

. I! I I I. 11

i i 11 111 I 11 I.I III
r'-r T 11
4 1: 1 1 1 . I. Ii I.I II.

1 1 1

--T 77-F
1 I I 1 1 1 1 1
7-T
1 1 ! 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1

I I I I I I I I

1 1 I 1 1 I I

l..t
I 1 I

- I I '. I I I I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '? I I I I 1 1 ?..

I 1 1 1 1 1
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 111 I I I I I I I
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 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 I I I I

I I 1

I I I I I I I I
TTT"F'
1 I 1 I I I I I
-?__.tTT
1 I
Tt-1-T`f._T
I 1 1 1-i I I I
I I I I I I __-1_...7_. I._
I +! I'I T
I I I .._._.T
I
I I I I I I I
I 1 1 1 1 11
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 1 1 1 1 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 1 1 1 1
? 1 1 I I '. I 111
I I I I
I I I I I 111
I I I. 1 1 "I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I

1_ 1 1 ?.• ?.?: 1. i. 1 II 111 --?... 1 1'I 1111 111 . 11111'.
I 111 I I I I I I 1 I I I Imo-I I I I III I 1 MITI I_I '.
I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1' 1 1 I I I I I I
I 1 I I '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
I I I' 1 I I I ?. I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
..__x_..1___1-?.lTf
I 1 I I I I I
T-T...
I I I I I I i l
- I I I
T..11 .TTI?T
I I
T_
I I I I 1 I 1 ( I
-r"T-:-r'7
I

1 1 1 1 1 I I

1 1 1 I I I
.TT__T...'f
: 1 1 1 1

I' I I t '1 11 I 1 1 1
TI.:
1

I I I I I I I '
I I I f? l l l I I I I I I I I I I i l I 1 1' l l l l 1 I I I I I
I I I I I
T-'7-f.....7...
I I I '. i. 111 __ _ k 1 I 1.1

i:.l ( I I I

I I.. 1"I I

I I I I 1 ( I

1 1 1-I 111 { 1 1 1 1 1 1

( I I I II
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
r
i
r
i
i
XS-3 Riffle LIT to Back Creek
2
1
0
c -1
0
2
?,
w
-3
-4
-5
------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --- - ------- -----
-
_ --
----

------------ 1
---------- 15 2
------------
i-----,?----'-- 0 2 5 2

-----'--- ---
- ---------- ---

-
-
--- ----T--
-
- --------
-
----------
- ---- --
--- ------- -- e_
_ ----- ----- ------------

from River Left to Right (ft)

stream:
location:
description:
of instrument (ft):
notes
M
5.32®.
5 5.5 --
5.62
8 - 6 - :.
.8 6.31
.6 6.44
.4 6.69
3 7.05
bankfull top of bE
-1.11 -0.36
"n"
-3.05
-3.25
-3.48
-3.48
-3.81
-3.62
-3.49
-3.23
-2.77
-1.11
0.04
0.28
0.32
0.33
0.27
dimensions
16.7 x-section area 1.6 d mean
10.4 width 12.5 wet P
2.7 d max 1.3 h yd radi
3.5 bank ht 6.5 w/d ratio
125.0 W flood prone area 12.0 eat ratio
rau ics
0.0
7 velocity ft/sec
0.0 discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocity ft/sec
0.000 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec)
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u'
9 9 threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
measured D84 mm
0.0 relative roughness 0.0F; factor
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel mWarial

771 -
h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. I I I I
1 I I 1 :. I I I l l j I I 1 . I I I} I I I 1 1
I 1 I I' I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1( I ,. t i l l I I I I I I ? 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I ( V I I I
I I 1I; I I I I I V I I I
I I V I I I I I I I
? I 1 1
I ' I I I I
1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I ( I I I I

I I I V I I I . I I I I I I I I V I I I
i I I I I I 1
I I I,'III I I IIII I I II IIII I I I !11 11 11111
i I I it i l l

I I I I I I ? 1 1 1 1 1 1

I I 1 1
I
r
I 1I I
I I I I?I I I I I I i l l

I I
r 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1
--F-, l._. I ..I TI. - fT I..I_r
_.TT T- 1
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I V I I I I I? I I ' V I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I V I I I
I I I I i l l l I I V I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 V I I I
I I 1 1 1 1 11
1 I 1 1+ I I I
I I I I r. I I I I 1 1 II I I
I I I I
I i I I I 1 V
1 I I.1
1 I r ( I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I
I I I I 1111
I I i t
1 1 I I I I t l l l
1 1 1 1 1 I,
I ( I I I I
I 1 I V I I I
':? I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1? I I 1 I I I I
I l l l i I I I 1 1 1
o I I I 1 1 1 11 1 ! I I I I
o i
ib

I V I
I I 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
I r I l l
1 I
1 I I'

I..I III r
I..I I11I
_I ?.. I
iII 1
1 17Yii9
1 lil 11
-T r T

'.I I I I TTTTT
f I I'
11

III I T

I I I I I II

H i l l II.'
1 I I l i l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 V I I I '.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i l l i l I I I I 11
I I I I I
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-- 1 1 1 1 1 1
-. I I I I
_.---__. -_ I 'I I 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 II I.I
r
T
1
r
T
r
r
1 I 1 I I I I I Trn

1 I I I 1 -r?r-'1

I 1 1
--
-r F
1
1 11
--I--r--r

1 1 1 t l 1
--"-
-T--r-r-n-

1 1 I I I I
-T
-r-r"M.
I i I I I I I I -!-f-TTi'T
I I I I I I
I I I
I I I
t I' I 111
I 1 1 1 1 1 I.
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 I I ? I I I I I I I I I I I i l I I I I I III
1 11.._1 I I.I I 11 111 ?,.I. ?. I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I I I I I'
'T--rTTT
I 1 I l i l l I -r--'t'TI?I'
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 I I 1 1
1 1 1 1 I
I I 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I';

1 I' 1 II
__T__,. T.._T?._I..I
1 '.1 1 1 1 1 1
._._ I I II.I
_--•'-T_.. t-T FT.
I I I 1 1 I I' I I I
._..i
I I 1 1 III

1 1 1 1 I 11 11
T-i.?, -i'f_
I 1 I I I I I 11 1 1 I1

I I V I I I
I 1' I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I l l l i I 1 I I t l l l I V I I I
I I II !III I I (IIII I I Il ill? I I I VIII 1 IIIIi
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
.
_
_ 1 1 1 I I t 1 1 I 1 ( I

I 11 11
1 1 ._...
._._T_..
T-TT1
1 1 1
1 1 1
I I I I .__'t`TT"f.
I( I I.
TT-lT-
1-TT
1 1 I V I I I

( I I I I

1 I t 1 1

1 1 1

1
T,
I I I f l l l
..-Z-r.i-
I I I I I 1 1
V I I I Ii I I1 1111 I III I III I f l l l I II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
". I I. I. 1 1 1 I1.
: T-T''TT'TT
I I I.! 1 1 1 .. I I I I I

I I I I 1 I. I

I I 1 1 11
iT
1 1 1 I

I: I I I I1 I I

I I I I' ( I I I I'
Tf"'7'TTT.
1 V I I

I1 VIII
I I I t? l l l
.,,- 1 I. (, I_ I

_ 'I"'-1 11111
I I 1 1 1 1 1
_, I I _I I I I I 1 17
I 1 I 1 1
-__,_ 1 I I I I 111
1 1 1
1 1 --. ,.I
I
I I I 11111
I I I l t l l
I I I I I -I I I I.I II?I
I 1 I I I I I I
1 I
1 I
I
i 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 1 1 1 1
I I 1 I I I 1 1
1 I I I I111
1 I 1 I i I I 1 I I V I I I
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
r I t l l l l
I 1 1 1 111
1 1 1 1 1 I ! 1 1
I I ( V
1 I I I
I? I V
I 1 1 1 1
I I I 1 1 1
I I I
111
I I I
111
1 1 „_
_
I
I
I
1
I I I 1 1 1 1 1
1 I I I I I I
I I I I111
I i I I I I.I
1 I I I ill
1 I V I I ,
,
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 11
I I I I 111
I I. I I I 1 1
I I f l l I?
I I l l l l l
TTI-I-T
1 I I V I I I
1 I ( V I I I -'TTT'I1-!T
I I 'I I I I I
1 ( V I I I - -T'TI-I
I I I V
. I 1 I I 1
I I I
1 11
i
1 1-...
1 I V I I I
1 I( I I I I
I 1 I I I I i l
1 1 1 1 1 1
II I I I I I I
1 I I V I I I
. _. I.... I I I I I. 11 I I I I I I
1 11 I I
1. I 1 1 I. I 1 1 1 1
I I 1 1 1
I 1 I 1 1
? III
1 11
1 1 1 I
I
1
... I I I I I II
I I V I I I
1 I I l l l l i l l l l 11?
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
......
1 I I I I I I I
I I I V I I I
I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1?
I ,,I I ( I I I I I 11
I 1 I1
I I I I I I I?
I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1?
I I 1 ( I I I I 1
I III Ai
Q I I 1 I I I ?A.
1 I i 1 1 1 1 1

F- ,....1 f f I-I 1 1 1 I t.1...,. .1. t 1 I 1 1 1 I .,.. I 1_. _1 _.i 1 .III: I I I „L, LJ„I. '
I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 I I 1 IT
I I 1 I I I 1 1 t 1 1 1 7 1 1 I I I J I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
it I I Ilil I I I III 1 I I I III 1 11 11111 I1 I11Ili
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 111'
I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 t I' 1 1 1 I I
1 1 III
1 11111
O'A
I I! I I
III
1
1 1 I1 Ill
I II 1111;'
.I 1 1 1 1 I i l ? it t II?I 1,.: I I f 1 111 .I I I I I I I I ,,:.I I t I?I i l
„1.,., I 1' I_.I I I I ,:I,.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I' 1 1 1 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I I I A I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I 11,