20050377 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20050627

O?O? W AT ?RQG
o `e ?c
MEMORANDUM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
( Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
.?- 4
TO: John Dorney .?
FROM: Amanda Mueller
SUBJECT: Bishop Property Restoration Plan, Anson County, North Carolina (DWQ# 05-0377
DATE: May 9, 2005\x'
Upon review of the wetlands portion of the, "Bishop Property Restoration Plan, Anson County,
North Carolina (DWQ# 05-0377) September 2004" document, several questions or concerns
arose.
1. When a restoration project is approved by DWQ and is accepted by EEP, does DWQ
need to receive and review yearly monitoring reports or are they reviewed solely by
EEP?
2. If a restoration project is done for EEP, do credit release schedules need to be
established similar to mitigation bank sites?
3. Are Ford construction areas allowed as part of a restoration project and credit? c
4. It is unclear to me whether they are asking for restoration credit for the backwater
slough wetland area and the braided channel that runs through it, or just for the slough
wetland area. If they are asking for credit for the backwater slough (wetland) and the
braided channel is that acceptable to receive credit for both.
5. Vegetation monitoring is discussed but no success criteria are stated (p. 35-36).
Success criteria for wetland and streams, herbaceous and trees must be stated in the
restoration plan.
6. It is unclear, but there appears to be a new, restored stream segment draining from the
wetland on the UT to Camp Branch to Camp Branch. Is it possible that this
additional stream segment could have a negative impact on the hydrology of the
wetland?
7. A portion of Dula Thoroughfare passes through an outparcel area (Fig.2). Does this
in any way affect the positive aspect of the restoration, enhancement, or preservation
of the adjacent stream sections?
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further assistance or clarification.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httn://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/newetlands
f
N Carolina
Natura!!y
i Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
BISHOP PROPERTY RESTORATION PLAN
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
050,9 ,
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ecosystem
E
_., PROGRAM
Prepared by:

.i
i
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
o jj
September 2004
FEB 5 705
DENR - VYA b'? QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STdgMVVATER BRAN',

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
0
0

F

1

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1
2.0 METHODS ..................................................................................................................... ...3
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... ...4
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ........................................................... ...4
3.2 Soils ..................................................................................................................... ...5
3.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands ......................................................................................... ...6
3.4 Hydrology ............................................................................................................. ...7
3.4.1 Surface Water ............................................................................................. ...7
3.4.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................... ...8
3.5 Stream Characterization ....................................................................................... ...8
3.6 Plant Communities ............................................................................................... .13
3.7 Protected Species ................................................................................................ .14
3.7.1 Federally Protected Species ....................................................................... .14
3.7.2 State Protected Species .............................................................................. .17
4.0 REFERENCE STUDIES ................................................................................................ .18
4.1 Reference Channel ............................................................................................... .18
4.2 Reference Forest Ecosystem ................................................................................ .20
5.0 STREAM POWER AND SHEAR STRESS STUDIES .................................................... .21
5.1 Discharge ..............................................................................................................21
5.2 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold ............................................21
5.2.1 Stream Power ..............................................................................................21
5.2.2 Shear Stress ................................................................................................22
5.2.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results ................................23
6.0 RESTORATION PLAN ....................................................................................................25
6.1 Stream Enhancement/Restoration .........................................................................25
6.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location .................................................................. 25
6.1.2 Stream Reconstruction In-Place ................................................................... 28
6.1.3 Ford Construction ........................................................................................ 29
6.2 Wetland Enhancement/Restoration ....................................................................... 29
6.3 Floodplain Soil Scarification ................................................................................... 30
6.4 Plant Community Restoration ................................................................................ 31
6.5 Planting Plan ......................................................................................................... 32
7.0 MONITORING PLAN ...................................................................................................... 34
7.1 Stream Monitoring ................................................................................................. 34
7.2 Stream Success Criteria ........................................................................................ 34
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring ............................................................................................. 35
7.4 Hydrology Success Criteria .................................................................................... 35
7.5 Vegetation Monitoring ............................................................................................ 35
7.8 Vegetation Success Criteria ................................................................................... 36
8.0 REF ERENCES ............................................................................................................... 37
Project 02-113.34 ii Bishop Property
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A FIGURES
APPENDIX B TABLES
APPENDIX C EXISTING STREAM DATA
APPENDIX D REFERENCE DATA
APPENDIX E CATENA GROUP FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY
APPENDIX F NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location ........................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 2 On-Site Land Use ................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 3 USGS Hydrologic Unit Map .................................................................Appendix A
Figure 4 Topography .........................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 5 NRCS Soils Map ................................................................................ ..Appendix A
Figure 6 Jurisdictional Systems ....................................................................... ..Appendix A
Figure 7 On-Site Stream Types ....................................................................... ..Appendix A
Figure 8 Existing Dimension and Plan View ..................................................... ..Appendix A
Figure 9 Restoration Plan ................................................................................ ..Appendix A
Figure 10 Typical Cross Sections ............. ......................................................... ..Appendix A
Figure 11 Live Willow Stake Revetments ........................................................... ..Appendix A
Figure 12 In-Stream Structures: Cross-Vane ..................................................... ..Appendix A
Figure 13 In-Stream Structures: J-Hook ............................................................. ..Appendix A
Figure 14 In-Stream Structures: Log-Vane ........................................................ ..Appendix A
Figure 15 Permanent Ford Detail ....................................................................... ..Appendix A
Figure 16 Planting Plan ..................................................................................... ..Appendix A
Figure 17 Conceptual Model of Target Community Patterns .............................. ..Appendix A
Figure 18 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................. ..Appendix A
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 On-Site Soils Mapped by NRCS ..........................................................................5
Table 2A-B Morphological Characteristics of Existing Channels .............................Appendix B
Table 3 Morphological Characteristics of Reference Channels .........................Appendix B
Table 4A-13 Reference Forest Ecosystem ...............................................................Appendix B
Table 5 Stream Power and Shear Stress Values ............................................................24
Table 6A-B Morphological Characteristics of Reference and Proposed Channels.. Appendix B
Table 7 Planting Plan ..................................................................... .............................33
Project 02-113.34 iii Bishop Property
BISHOP PROPERTY RESTORATION PLAN
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) is currently evaluating stream and
' wetland restoration opportunities on the Bishop Property Restoration Site located approximately
3 miles north of the Town of Ansonville in northern Anson County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
The Bishop Property consists of three parcels, owned by Mr. John Bishop, collectively
' encompassing approximately 900 acres of land. The proposed restoration area, including
approximately 195 acres within the three parcels, has been placed under a conservation
easement and will hereafter be referred to as the Site (Figure 2).
The Site is located at the confluence of the Rocky River and the Pee Dee River, immediately
' upstream from the approximately 8,000-acre Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. In the Site
vicinity, the Rocky and Pee Dee River floodplains have largely been cleared of forest vegetation
and are currently utilized as fertile pasture, hay fields, or agricultural fields (row crop
' production). The Site has potential to serve as an important wildlife corridor along two major
waterways extending to the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge.
' The Site is primarily utilized for row crop production and recreational activities (hunting and
wildlife viewing). Removal of riparian vegetation, dredging/straightening of on-Site streams,
annual clearing, plowing, and additions of nutrient fertilizers appear to have resulted in
' degraded water quality (sediment inputs and agricultural runoff into the Rocky and Pee Dee
Rivers), unstable channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse),
and decreased wetland function.
1

C

1
The purpose of this study is to establish stream and wetland enhancement/restoration concepts
which will result in benefits to water quality and wildlife by providing stable streams and
wetlands within a wildlife corridor located adjacent to two major waterways and an important
wildlife refuge. This detailed restoration plan is expected to outline activities to be included in
construction planning documents. The objectives of this study include the following:
• Classify the on-Site streams based on fluvial geomorphic principles.
• Identify jurisdictional wetlands and/or hydric soils within the Site boundaries.
• Identify a suitable reference forest, stream, and wetland to model Site restoration
attributes.
• Develop a detailed plan of stream and wetland enhancement/restoration activities within
the Site.
• Establish success criteria and a method of monitoring the Site upon completion of
restoration implementation.
After implementation, restoration activities are expected to provide the following:
Project 02-113.34 1 Bishop Property
I . 5,663 linear feet of stream restoration
2. 1,190 linear feet of stream enhancement - level 1
3. 7,306 linear feet of stream enhancement - level 2
4. 11,250 linear feet of stream preservation
5. 5.6 acres of wetland restoration
6. 0.9 acres of wetland enhancement
7. 10.2 acres of wetland preservation
This document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed within the
Site. The plan includes 1) descriptions of existing conditions; 2) reference stream, wetland, and
forest studies; 3) restoration/enhancement plans; and 4) Site monitoring and success criteria.
Upon approval of this plan by regulatory agencies, engineering construction plans will be
prepared and activities implemented as outlined. Proposed restoration activities may be
modified during the civil design stage due to constraints such as access issues, sediment-
erosion control measures, drainage needs (floodway constraints), or other design
considerations.
Project 02-113.34 2 Bishop Property
2.0 METHODS

1

Natural resource information was obtained from available sources. United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Millstone Lake, NC), United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) soils mapping for Anson County (NRCS 2000), and recent Anson
County aerial photography were utilized to evaluate existing landscape, stream, and soil
information prior to on-Site inspection.
Reference stream geometry methods have been used to orient channel reconstruction design.
Reference stream and floodplain systems were identified and measured in the field to quantify
stream geometry, substrate, and hydrodynamics. Stream characteristics and detailed
restoration plans were developed according to constructs outlined in Rosgen (1996), Dunne and
Leopold (1978), Harrelson et al. (1994), Chang (1988), and State of North Carolina Interagency
Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003). Stream pattern, dimension, and profile
under stable environmental conditions were measured along reference (i.e. relatively
undisturbed) stream reaches and applied to the degraded channel within the Site.
Reconstructed stream channels and hydraulic geometry relationships have been designed to
mimic stable channels identified and evaluated in the region.
Files at the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were evaluated for the presence of
protected species. Characteristic and target natural plant community patterns were classified
according to Schafale and Weakley's, Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina (1990). Plant communities were delineated and described by structure and
composition.
Detailed field investigations were performed between September 2003 and May 2004 including
generation of Site channel cross-sections, profiles, and plan-views; valley cross-sections;
detailed soil mapping, and mapping of on-Site resources. Hydrology, vegetation, and soil
attributes were analyzed to determine the status of jurisdictional areas. Jurisdictional wetlands
and adjustments to hydric soil boundaries were delineated using Global Positioning System
(GPS) technology. Recent (2003) aerial photography was evaluated to determine primary
hydrologic features and to map relevant environmental attributes.
Information collected on-Site and in reference ecosystems was compiled in a database and
incorporated with field observations to evaluate the on-Site stream under existing conditions.
Subsequently, this restoration plan was developed to facilitate restoration success and to
provide stream and wetland restoration to the EEP.
' Project 02-113.34 3 Bishop Property
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Site is located in northern Anson County near the border of Stanly, Montgomery, and
Richmond Counties, approximately 3 miles north of Ansonville, North Carolina. The Site falls in
two USGS 14-digit Hydrologic Units (HUs).
The Site is underlain by the Carolina Slate Belt geologic formation, immediately adjacent to the
Chatham Group of the Triassic Basin geologic formation, within the Piedmont physiographic
province of North Carolina. The hydrophysiographic region is characterized by dissected
irregular plains, some hills, linear ridges, and isolated monadnocks (Griffith 2002) (Figure 4).
This region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging approximately
47 inches per year (NRCS 2000).
The Site is located within and adjacent to the Rocky River floodplain immediately upstream of
the confluence of the Rocky River with the Pee Dee River. Slopes adjacent to the Rocky River
floodplain are relatively steep and range in elevation from approximately 320 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGDV) at the upper reaches of smaller on-Site tributaries to a low of
approximately 190 feet NGDV in the lower portions of the Rocky River floodplain (Figure 4).
The Site includes approximately 5,500 linear feet of frontage adjacent to the Rocky River and
approximately 23,000 linear feet of channel associated with four additional streams: Camp
Branch, Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Camp Branch, Dula Thoroughfare, and UT to Dula
Thoroughfare (Figure 2). Camp Branch is characterized as a second-order stream extending
through relatively wide, moderately sloped valley (approximately 0.0022 rise/run). Dula
Thoroughfare and the UTs are characterized as first-order streams extending through relatively
narrow, steeply sloped valleys (approximately 0.022 and 0.0047 rise/run). The drainage area at
the Camp Branch outfall is approximately 2.9 square miles. The drainage area at the Dula
Thoroughfare and UT outfall are approximately 0.36 and 0.23 square miles, respectively
(Figure 4).
The watersheds for Camp Branch, Dula Thoroughfare, and the UTs are characterized
predominately by agricultural land (row crops and livestock production) and forest with sparse
residential development. Drainage basins for Dula Thoroughfare and the UTs are contained
almost completely within property owned by Mr. Bishop or his immediate neighbor. The Camp
Branch drainage basin extends upstream and encompasses several state maintained
roadways, residential and agricultural structures adjacent -to the roadways, and a rail line.
Impervious surfaces in drainage basins upstream from the Site are expected to cover less than
5 percent of the land area.
Agricultural row crop production dominates the lower elevation floodplain terraces adjacent to
the Rocky River, accounting for approximately 85 percent of the floodplain land area. Streams
which cross through the floodplains are generally fringed by a disturbed stream-side
assemblage; however, Dula Thoroughfare is devoid of a riparian fringe for much of its reach
through the floodplain. As the streams grade upslope toward their headwaters, timber
Project 02-113.34 4 Bishop Property
' production is the dominant land use. Forested areas are characterized by a mixture of pine and
hardwood species approximately 10 to 15 years old. Recreational activities, specifically
' hunting, occur throughout the Site and various tree stands and food plots occur throughout the
Site and adjacent properties.
' Two man-made impoundments located in the UT to Camp Branch stream complex encompass
approximately 2.4 acres of land. The smaller impoundment (approximately 0.1 acre) is located
at the UT headwaters and the larger impoundment (approximately 2.3 acres) has been created
' at the outer Camp Branch floodplain edge. These impoundments appear to have been created
for irrigation of crops and recreational uses.
' 3.2 Soils
Site soils have been mapped by the NRCS and include the Badin - Goldston complex, as well
' as the McQueen, Shellbluff, Tetotum, and Chewacla series (NRCS 2000) (Figure 5). A general
description of each soil and its hydric/non-hydric status is included in Table 1.
Table 1 - On-Site soils mapped by NRCS
' Series Hydric Status Family Description
Badin Channery
Silt Loam (BaB, Non-Hydric Typic Hapludults moderately deep, well drained, moderately
'
BaC) permeable
Badin-Goldston Non-Hydric Typic Hapludults- shallow to moderately deep, well drained,
' Complex (BgD) Typic Dystrudepts moderate to moderately rapid permeability
McQueen (MrB) Non-Hydric Typic Hapludults deep, well drained, slow permeability
Shellbluff (ShA) Non-Hydric Fluventic very deep, well drained, moderate
' Dystrudepts permeability
Tetotum (ToA) Non-Hydric Aquic Hapludults very deep, moderately well drained, moderate
permeability
' Non-Hydric;
Chewacla (ChA) may contain Fluventic very deep, somewhat poorly drained,
hydric Dystrudepts moderate permeability
' inclusions
Badin Channerv Silt Loam BaB. BaC:
' This series is typically found on Piedmont uplands wi th moderate to steep slopes (2 to 8 percent
or 8 to 15 percent). The soil solum is moderately deep and well drained with moderate
permeability. Depth to seasonal high water table is greater than 6.0 feet, and depth to bedrock
' is 20 to 40 inches to soft bedrock and over 40 inches to hard bedrock. Badin Channery Silt
Loam typically occurs on upland side slopes adjacent to area streams and tributaries
' Badin-Goldston Complex BqD:
This series shares many characteristics with the Badin Channery Silt Loam described above;
however, the addition of Goldston in the complex produces additional ranges for some values.
' These soils are also found in the Piedmont on slopes of 15 to 25 percent. Depths can range
from shallow to moderately deep, and permeability can be moderate to moderately rapid,
though typically well drained. Depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than 6.0 feet,
t Project 02-113.34 5 Bishop Property
and depth to bedrock varies from 10 to 20 inches and 20 to 40 inches to soft bedrock. Depth to '
hard bedrock is between 10 to 20 inches and greater than 40 inches. Badin-Goldston Complex
occurs at the base of steep slopes adjacent to Dula Thoroughfare. '
Chewacla ChA:
These frequently flooded soils can be found in floodplains of the Piedmont, Upper Coastal '
Plains, and Sandhills. Soils are very deep and somewhat poorly drained with moderate
permeability. During the months of November through April the seasonal high water table can '
be at a depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches. Chewacla soils occur
in low elevation depressions within the Rocky River floodplain.
McQueen MrB:
This series, found in -the Piedmont, Upper Coastal Plain, and Sandhills along major streams and
rivers, is very deep and well drained. Permeability is slow, and the seasonal high water table
through the months of January through March is at a depth of 4 to 6 feet. Depth to bedrock is
greater than 60 inches. McQueen soils occur in floodplains adjacent to the Rocky River and
Camp Branch.
Shellbluff (ShA):
This soil series is also found in floodplains of the Piedmont, Upper Coastal Plain, and Sandhills
landscapes. Shellbluff soils are typically very deep and well drained with moderate
permeability. Slopes are quite flat, ranging between 0 and 2 percent. From December to March
the seasonal high water table can vary between 3 and 5 feet, and depth to bedrock is more than
60 inches. Shellbluff soils occur in crowned agricultural fields within the Rocky River floodplain.
Tetotum (ToA):
These soils are located on low stream terraces in the Piedmont, Upper Coastal Plain, and
Sandhills landscapes. Tetotum soils are classified as very deep and moderately well drained
with moderate permeability. These soils are found in low slope areas with slopes ranging from
0 to 3 percent. Seasonal high water tables in the months of December to April are between 1.5
and 2.5 feet. Bedrock can be found at depths greater than 60 inches. Tetotum soils occur in
low elevation depressions downstream from a man-made pond in the UT to Camp Branch and
in the floodplain to Dula Thoroughfare.
3.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional areas are defined using the criteria set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). Wetlands are defined by the presence of
three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology during
the growing season (DOA 1987). Open water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment
and consideration with respect to Section 404 review. Site jurisdictional areas include surface
water in bank-to-bank streams, vegetated wetlands, and open water ponds.
Site jurisdictional areas were delineated and located using GPS technology between August 27
and Oct 2, 2003 (Figure 6). The delineation was reviewed and approved by the USACE (Steve
Lund regional field office representative) on January 13, 2004. Based on the jurisdictional
boundary mapping, approximately 15.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 28,518 linear feet of
Project 02-113.34 6 Bishop Property
' jurisdictional streams, including 5,500 linear feet of Rocky River frontage, were delineated within
the Site.
Two distinct jurisdictional wetlands types occur within the Site boundaries: 1) groundwater seep
depressions and 2) shallow surface water conveyances.
' Groundwater Seep Depressions
Groundwater seep depressions occur at the upper headwaters of small tributaries and at the
' outer floodplain edge. These wetlands are formed by surface expression of groundwater over
dense, low permeability clays or other impervious sub-surface horizons. On-Site groundwater
seep depressions are underlain by loamy to clayey soils which are gleyed in color with frequent
' mottling, potentially indicating a fluctuating water table. Vegetation in these areas is frequently
disturbed by land clearing in support of agriculture or timber harvest and consists of dense
thickets of shrub and herbaceous species such as blackberry (Rubus sp.), black willow (Salix
' nigra), climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), and tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum).
Shallow Surface Water Conveyances
' Shallow surface water conveyances occur in portions of the Rocky River floodplain where
streams have been dredged, straightened, and altered from their original flow path. The reach
of Dula Thoroughfare across the Rocky River floodplain is characterized by exceedingly low
' slopes resulting in ponding and sloughing of ditch banks, thereby creating a shallow, wide
depression that remains inundated throughout most of the year. Although the area is inundated
for extended periods, soils remain brightly colored (approximately 10YR 4/4 to 10 YR 4/6) which
is characteristic of Triassic Basin area wetlands. Vegetation in these areas is characterized by
row crop production and herbaceous species such as knotweed (Polygonum spp.), cat tail
' (Typha latifolia), rushes (Juncus spp.), and sedges (Carex spp.).
3.4 Hydrology
' 3.4.1 Surface Water
The primary hydrologic feature at the Site is the Rocky River. The Rocky River is approximately
' 240 feet in width and 25 feet in depth at the Site boundary. Hydro-electric facilities on the Pee
Dee River, located immediately upstream from the confluence of the Rocky River and Pee Dee
River, have periodic releases resulting in back-flow conditions in the Rocky River, often leading
' to fluctuations in the normal hydrologic flow regime. Back-flow conditions affect on-Site surface
water flow patterns at the confluence of Site streams with the Rocky River.
' Smaller area tributaries initiate as groundwater driven, depressional seepages on slopes
adjacent to the Rocky River floodplain. Tributaries descend as first-order streams down
moderate to steeply sloped, narrow valleys. As the tributaries coalesce, they form larger
' second and third order streams. Once the streams enter the Rocky River floodplain, they are
generally impacted by agricultural practices, vegetation clearing, and channel
' dredging/straightening. Upon convergence with the Rocky River, the channels tend to incise to
depths consistent with the dominant hydrologic feature, the Rocky River.
Project 02-113.34 7 Bishop Property
Discharge within the Site appears to be dominated by a combination of upstream basin
catchments, groundwater flow, and precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al.
1999) and infield measurements of channel bankfull cross-sectional area, bankfull discharges
for on-Site streams include the following:
Drainage Area Bankfull Discharge
Stream Name (square miles) (cubic feet per second)
Camp Branch 2.9 192
Dula Thoroughfare 0.4 46
UT to Dula Thoroughfare 0.2 28
Current research indicates bankfull discharge would be expected to occur approximately every
1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996).
3.4.2 Groundwater
Groundwater seepage results from upland terrestrial catchments, subsurface lateral
groundwater flow, and expression of the groundwater table in jurisdictional wetland pockets or
area stream margins. Groundwater seepage is related. to the size and characteristics of the
catchment basin, while subsurface lateral flow is related to the porosity/conductivity of drainage
basin soils. The drainage basin upstream of the Site is characterized largely by mature forest
and open pasture with little impervious surface. With the exception of roads and roadside
ditches, precipitation is expected to penetrate area soils and enter the groundwater table to be
discharged into area wetlands and streams.
Several groundwater seepages areas were identified within the Site. Groundwater seepage
areas were delineated as jurisdictional wetlands and are depicted in Figure 6. Groundwater
seepage areas are located at two distinct landscape positions: 1) at the upper extend of area
tributaries, or 2) at the outer floodplain edge, adjacent to steep valley slopes. Both seepage
types occur in depressions induced by soil saturation and function for surface water storage,
pollutant removal; wildlife habitat, and nutrient cycling (Marble 1992).
3.5 Stream Characterization
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to orient stream restoration based on
a classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification stratifies
streams into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate
characteristics. Primary components of the classification include degree of entrenchment,
width/depth ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and stream substrate composition. Each stream
type is modified by a number from 1 through 6 (example: E6) denoting a stream type which
indicates a substrate dominated by 1) bedrock, 2) boulders, 3) cobble, 4) gravel, 5) sand, or 6)
silt/clay.
On-Site streams were measured and characterized as E-type (narrow and deep), C-type (wide
and shallow), and G-type (gully) channels. The location of each stream type is depicted in
Figure 7. Figures 8 through 81 and Table 2A and 2B (Appendix B) depict morphological
characteristics of existing on-Site channels. Individual cross-section data and other
morphological information are included in Appendix C.
Project 02-113.34 8 Bishop Property
Camp Branch - Reach 1 (E-Type): Upstream of Headcut
' Location: Extends from the upstream northern property boundary to a channel headcut
which is migrating upstream due to disturbances associated with on-Site land management
practices (Figure 8).
Dimension (Figure 8A)
Bankfull Channel Cross Sectional Area - 38.7 feet2
' Existing Channel Cross Sectional Area - 38.7 to 52.8 feet2 (slightly enlarged)
Bank Height Ratio -1.1 to 1.3 (slight to moderate erosion hazard)
Width/Depth Ratio - 8 -12
' Notes: Dimension values for this reach appear suitable for E-type streams in the vicinity.
' Pattern
Sinuosity - 1.18
Notes: Pattern values for this reach appear suitable for E-type streams in the vicinity
' Profile (Figure 8B)
Valley Slope - 0.0047 rise/run
Water Surface Slope = 0.0029 rise/run
' Pool Slope - 0 to 0.0013 rise/run
Riffle Slope - 0.0008 to 0.0167 rise/run
' Notes: The upper range of riffle slopes are higher than expected, possibly due to headcut
migration into the lower portions of the reach.
' Substrate:
D50 - 7 millimeters (fine gravel)
' Camp Branch - Reach 2 (E-Type): Headcut to Ford
Location: Extends downstream from the headcut to an active ford, utilized to access fields
north of Camp Branch (Figure 8).

Dimension (Figure 8A)
Bankfull Channel Cross Sectional Area - 38.7 feet2
Existing Channel Cross Sectional Area - 51 to 62 feet2 (nearly twice bankfull cross sectional
area)
Bank Height Ratio -1.5 (moderate to high erosion hazard)
Width/Depth Ratio - 8.7
Notes: This reach of Camp Branch is oversized and moderately entrenched.
Pattern
Sinuosity - 1.18
Project 02-113.34 9 Bishop Property
Notes: Pattern values for this reach appear suitable for E-type streams in the vicinity.
Profile (Figure 8B)
Valley Slope - 0.0047 rise/run
Water Surface Slope - 0.0029 rise/run
Pool Slope - 0 to 0.007 .rise/run
Riffle Slope - 0.0042 to 0.0144 rise/run
Notes: The steeper facet slopes may result from headcuts and other knick points in the
channel bottom.
Substrate:
D50 - 5 millimeters (fine gravel)
Camp'Branch - Reach 3 (G-Type): Downstream of Ford
Location: Extends from the ford to a portion of Camp Branch that begins to downcut to the
Rocky River (Figure 8).
Dimension (Figure 8C)
Bankfull Channel Cross Sectional Area - 42 feet2
Existing Channel Cross Sectional Area - 104 to 124 feet2 (nearly three times the bankfull
cross-sectional area)
Bank Height Ratio - 2.2 to 2.4 (high to excessive erosion hazard)
Width/Depth Ratio - 6 to 9
Notes: This reach of Camp Branch is oversized and highly entrenched.
Pattern
Sinuosity - 1.05
Notes: Straightening of the channel has resulted in a loss of pattern variables such as pool-
to-pool spacing, meander length, and radius of curvature. Pattern values for this reach are
outside the modal concept for stable, E-type streams in the region.
Profile (Figure 8D)
Valley Slope - 0.0047 rise/run
Water Surface Slope - 0.0041 rise/run
Pool Slope - 0.0000 to 0.0020 rise/run
Riffle Slope - 0.0011 to 0.0614 rise/run
Notes: Riffle slope to average water surface slope ratios vary between 0.27 and 15
indicating over-steepened riffle slopes. Similarly, pool slope to average water surface slope
varies from 0 to 1.6 indicating over-steepened pool slopes. Over-steepened facet slopes
result from dredging and straightening of Camp Branch and impacts from land use activities
through the reach.
Project 02-113.34 10 Bishop Property
Substrate:
' D50 -13.8 millimeters (medium gravel)
Notes: Silt and clay particles make up 14 percent of the bed material, possibly indicating
' bimodal sediment transport from eroding channel banks.
Dula Thoroughfare (E-Type): Upstream Reach
' Location: Extends downstream from a piped road crossing to the Rocky River floodplain
(Figure 8).
I Dimension (Figure 8E)
Bankfull Channel Cross Sectional Area - 5.1 feet2
Existing Channel Cross Sectional Area - 5.1 to 5.5 feet2 (slightly enlarged)
' Bank Height Ratio - 1.0 to 1.1 (low erosion hazard)
Width/Depth Ratio - 6.1 to 8.0
Notes: Dimension values for this reach appear suitable for E-type streams in the vicinity.
' Pattern
Sinuosity - 1.05
' Notes: Although sinuosity values are low for stable E-type streams in the area, the valley is
relatively steep and narrow, resulting in relatively straight channel development.
' Profile (Figure 8F)
Valley Slope - 0.0239 rise/run
Water Surface Slope - 0.0228 rise/run
' Pool Slope - 0 to 0.0161 rise/run
Riffle Slope - 0.0036 to 0.096 rise/run
' Notes: Pool slopes and riffle slopes are relatively steep; however, the ratio of these facet
slopes to average water surface slope (average riffle 1.6 and average pool 0.13) indicate
stable profile values throughout this reach.
Substrate:
D50 - less than 1 millimeter (silt and clay)
' Dula Thoroughfare (C-type): Downstream Reach
Location: Contained within the Rocky River floodplain and extends from alluvial fan
' deposits associated with the upstream reach to the property boundary (Figure 8).
Dimension (Figure 8G)
' Bankfull Channel Cross Sectional Area - 5.7 to 8.4 feet2
Existing Channel Cross Sectional Area - 5.7 to 19.7 feett2 (slightly enlarged to highly
' oversized)
' Project 02-113.34 11 Bishop Property
Bank Height Ratio - 1.0 to 2.0 (low to excessive erosion hazard)
Width/Depth Ratio - 23 to 40
Notes: The large variation in these values results from channel dredging and straightening,
impounding of the reach for duck habitat, and low slope of the channel as it migrates
through an unnatural channel across the Rocky River floodplain. Dimensional values
appear to reside outside the modal concept for stable streams in the area.
Pattern
Sinuosity - 1.01
Notes: Dredging and straightening of the channel resulted in no measurable channel
features (riffles and pools).
Profile (Figure 8H)
Valley Slope - 0.0019 rise/run
Water Surface Slope - 0.0019 rise/run
Notes: Pool slopes and riffle slopes were not measurable due to dredging and
straightening activities and slackwater conditions through the reach; however, these values
are not expected to be within the acceptable range for stable streams in the area.
Substrate:
D50 - less than 1 millimeter (silt and clay)
UT to Dula Thoroughfare (G-type): Upstream Reach
Location: Extends through an eroded section of channel for approximately 195 linear feet
at the upper reaches of the stream (Figure 8).
Dimension (Figure 81)
Bankfull Channel Cross Sectional Area - 4.8 feet
Existing Channel Cross Sectional Area - 12.8 feet (more than 2.5 times bankfull cross
sectional area)
Bank Height Ratio -1.9 (excessive erosion hazard)
Width/Depth Ratio - 2.8
Notes: This reach of UT to Dula Thoroughfare is oversized and highly entrenched.
Pattern
Sinuosity - 1.09
Notes: Although sinuosity values are low for stable E-type streams in the area, the valley is
relatively steep and narrow, resulting in relatively straight channel development.
Profile
Valley Slope - Not Measured
Project 02-113.34 12 Bishop Property
Water Surface Slope - Mot Measured
Notes: Pool slopes and riffle slopes are appear relatively steep due to headcut formation
within the reach.
Substrate:
D50 - Not Measured

UT to Dula Thoroughfare (E-type): Downstream Reach
Location: Extends from the entrenched, upstream reach to a forded crossing of Dula
Thoroughfare (Figure 8).
Dimension (Figure 81)
Bankfull Channel Cross Sectional Area - 4.4 to 5.1 feet2
Existing Channel Cross Sectional Area - 6.9 (slightly enlarged)
Bank Height Ratio - 1.5 to 2.3 (high to excessive erosion hazard)
Width/Depth Ratio - 6
Notes: This reach of UT to Dula Thoroughfare is slightly oversized and highly entrenched.
Spoil castings on stream banks and within the adjacent floodplain occur through much of
the reach.
Pattern
Sinuosity - 1.17
Notes: Shoot cutoffs and channel realignment is prevalent through this reach.
Profile
' Valley Slope - Not Measured
Water Surface Slope - Mot Measured

Notes: Pool slopes and riffle slopes appear relatively steep due to headcut formation within
the reach.
Substrate:
D50 - Not Measured
3.6 Plant Communities
The Site is characterized by broad expanses of agricultural fields, along with mesic mixed
pine/hardwood forest, upland slope forest, bottomland hardwood forest, and game species food
plots. Site forests do not exhibit climax conditions due to past timber practices. Primary
agricultural crops include corn, cotton, and soy beans, with interspersed patches of sorghum
and clover for game species. Invasive species identified in agricultural fields during fallow times
or prior to planting of crops consists primarily of morning glory (Convolvu/us arvensis), clover
(Trifolium campestre), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia).
I Project 02-113.34 13 Bishop Property
Mesic mixed pine/hardwood forest occurs adjacent to undisturbed streams descending from
slopes adjacent to the Rocky River floodplain. The community occurs as narrow bands
adjacent to smaller tributaries such as UT to Camp Branch, the upper reaches of Dula
Thoroughfare, and the UT to Dula Thoroughfare. Species present include loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and hackberry (Celtis laevigata). Vines present within this community
include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine
(Vitus rotundifolia).
Upland slope forest occurs on steep, dry slopes adjacent to floodplains and includes species
such as white oak (Quercus alba), water oak (Quercus nigra), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana),
and various hickories (Carya spp.). Understory species include red maple, winged sumac
(Rhus copallinum), and dogwood (Corpus florida) while vines present include poison ivy and
muscadine.
Bottomland hardwood forest is located in moist, frequently flooded flats adjacent to the Rocky
River and Camp Branch. This community is characterized by species such as American
sycamore, black willow, green ash, American elm (Ulmus americana), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). The shrub component of this community includes
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), red maple,
sweetgum, and muscadine.
3.7 Protected Species
3.7.1 Federally Protected Species
Species with the Federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed
(P) for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered species" is defined as "any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"
(16 U.S.C. 1532).
The following Federally protected species are listed for Anson County (5 February 2003 FWS
list):
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocepha/us T
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E
Schweinitz's sunflower Heilanthus schweinitizii E
Project 02-113.34 14 Bishop Property I
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet. Adult bald eagles are dark
brown with a white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on the tail,
belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also take birds and small
mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through May (Potter et al.
1980). Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water.
Eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992).
Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet from a nest tree are
considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). The FWS
recommends avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting, within this
primary zone. Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a
distance of 1.0 mile from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be
restricted to the non-nesting period. The FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural
shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within
1500 feet of known roosting sites.

I

I

The Site is located near open water systems which may be suitable for bald eagle feeding
habitat. However, on-Site perching and nesting trees are limited to a disturbed, narrow fringe
(approximately 25 to 50 feet in width) adjacent to the Rocky River. NHP records show the
nearest elemental occurrence of bald eagle approximately 3.1 miles north of the Site,
immediately south of Lake Tillery's Norwood Dam. NHP records and a lack of perching and
nesting habitat indicate that, this project is not expected to adversely effect known populations
of Bald Eagle.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches in length) has a black head, prominent white cheek
patches, and a black-and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind
the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary nest
sites for red-cockaded woodpeckers include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with
little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed
hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). Nest cavities are constructed in the
heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years, which have been infected with red-
heart disease. _ Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies
(USFWS 1985). The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting
in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest
trees. Ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker include pine flatwoods or pine-
dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent natural or prescribed fires.
Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
Field investigations indicate no suitable nesting or foraging habitat (pine stands greater than 30
years of age) within, or adjacent to, the Site. Based on NHP records, observations conducted
during field investigations, and existing conditions of the Site, this project is not expected to
adversely effect known populations of red-cockaded woodpecker.
Project 02-113.34 15 Bishop Property
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Carolina Heelsplitter
The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, trapezoid shaped, unsculptured shell which grows to a
maximum of approximately 4.5 inches length, by 2.7 inches height, and 1.5 inches in width
(USFWS 1996). The shell varies in color from a greenish brown to dark brown on the outer
surface and is often pearly to whitish blue, grading to orange on the inside surface. The dorsal
margin is straight and may end in a slight wing, and the umbo is flattened. Beak sculpture is
depressed and double looped, extending slightly past the hinge line. Lateral teeth are generally,
thin and pseudo-cardinal teeth are lamellar and parallel to the dorsal margin (TSCFTM 1990).
Historically, this species was reported in the Abbeville district of South Carolina and
Mecklenburg County in North Carolina (Clarke 1985). The Abbeville district is bordered on the
south by the Savannah River and on the north by the Saluda River. Presently the species
range is limited to only six small streams and one small river. The heelsplitter is usually found in
mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel substrates along stable, well-shaded stream banks (Kefed
and Shelly 1988). Currently, the heelsplitter is found in only two small remnant populations in
North Carolina: 1) a tributary (Goose Creek) to the Rocky River located in Union County and 2)
in a tributary (Waxhaw Creek) to the Catawba River located in Union County (USFWS 2003).
NHP records indicate that this species has not been documented within 2.0 miles of the Site.
However, the Site is located within the Rocky River drainage basin, and portions of Site streams
are characterized by stable, vegetated stream banks; therefore, detailed surveys for presence of
this species were necessary prior to initiation of Site implementation.
The Catena Group, Inc was retained to complete a field survey for the Carolina heelsplitter in
the waters of Camp Branch, UT to Camp Branch, Dula Thoroughfare, UT to Dula Thoroughfare,
and Rocky River. It was found that the streams surveyed were generally not suitable as
freshwater mussel habitat, and no Carolina Heelsplitter mussels were found in the survey.
There is a slight possibility that mussel populations exist downstream of the project site on the
Rocky River, but it is unlikely that these populations include the Carolina Heelsplitter. For this
reason, the Catena Group anticipates the stream mitigation within the Bishop tract to be "Not
Likely To Adversely Effect" the Carolina Heelsplitter (Freshwater Mussel Survey, Appendix
E).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION ' NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY EFFECT
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to
approximately 6 feet in height. The stem may be purple and is usually pubescent; however, the
stems are sometimes nearly smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but
alternate above and are lanceolate in shape, averaging 5 to 10 times as long as wide. The
leaves are rather thick and stiff, with a few small serrations. The upper leaf surface is rough and
Project 02-113.34 16 Bishop Property
the lower surface is usually pubescent with soft white hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from
September to frost. Flower heads are yellow and approximately 0.6 inches in diameter. The
current range of this species is within 60 miles of Charlotte, North Carolina, occurring on upland
interstream flats or gentle slopes. The plants usually occur in soils that are thin or clay in
texture. The species needs open areas protected from shade or excessive competition,
reminiscent of Piedmont prairies. Disturbances such as fire maintenance or regular mowing
help sustain preferred habitat (USFWS 1994).
NHP records indicate that this species has not been documented within 2.0 miles of the Site.
Schweinitz's sunflower needs open areas protected from shade or excessive competition,
reminiscent of Piedmont prairies. Roadside edges have been maintained as an open
herbaceous community and appear to be suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower.
Agricultural field edges may provide additional habitat, providing that they are not intensively
maintained and that competition from agricultural weeds is not excessive. Detailed surveys for
this species were conducted on September 21 and 22, 2004, using systematic transects along
all possible habitat areas. No specimens of Schweinitz's sunflower were found. Based on NHP
records, field surveys, and professional judgment, this project will not affect Schweinitz's
sunflower.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION

3.7.2 State Protected Species
NO EFFECT
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina State list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (P)
(Amoroso 2002) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act
(G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et
seg.). A records search of NHP files indicates one element occurrence within 2.0 miles of the
Site. The thin-pod white wild indigo (Baptisia albescens) is not federally listed; however, it is
listed in North Carolina as SR-P* (-P = species at the periphery of its range in North Carolina, *
= historic record, not seen since 1979). Restoration activities are not expected to adversely
affect this species.
I Project 02-113.34 17 Bishop Property
4.0 REFERENCE STUDIES
4.1 Reference Channel
A fundamental concept of stream classification entails the development and application of
regional reference curves to stream reconstruction and enhancement. Regional reference
curves can be utilized to predict bankfull stream geometry, discharge, and other parameters in
altered systems. Development of regional reference curves for North Carolina was initiated in
1995. The curves characterize a broad range of streams within the Piedmont physiographic
province. Small watersheds or deviations in valley slope, land use, or geologic substrate may
not be accurately described by the curves; therefore, verification of individual watersheds may
be necessary. On-Site and off-site reference reaches have been utilized in conjunction with
regional curves for detailed planning and characterization of this restoration project.
In order to develop proposed geometric parameters for on-Site, degraded channels, three
nearby streams were measured for reference. The primary reference reaches for larger, lower
slope on-Site channels are located 1) within Camp Branch at the upper on-Site reaches of the
channel and 2) approximately 35 miles northwest of the Site on an unnamed tributary to Crane
Creek. These reference streams are characterized by E-type channels.
The primary reference reach for smaller, higher slope on-Site channels is located approximately
34 miles west of the Site on an unnamed tributary to Reedy Creek. This reference stream is
characterized as an E-type channel.
Table 3 (Appendix B) includes a summary of dimension, profile, and pattern data for the
reference reaches used to establish reconstruction parameters. Channel cross-sections were
measured at systematic locations and stream profiles were developed via laser level and GPS.
Stream substrates were quantified through systematic pebble counts along the reference reach.
Individual cross-section data and other morphological information are included in Appendix D.
Initially, reference streams were visited and classified by stream type (Rosgen 1996). This
classification stratifies streams into comparable groups based on geometric characteristics.
Reference reaches identified in the vicinity were characterized primarily as E-type (highly
sinuous) channels with sand or gravel substrate. E-type streams are slightly entrenched, highly
sinuous (>1.5) channels which exhibit high meander width ratios (belt width/bankfull width). In
North Carolina, E-type streams occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-developed alluvial
floodplains (Valley Type VIII). These streams exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated
with a sinuous flow pattern.
Dimension
Camp Branch - Reach 1 (E-Type): Upstream of Headcut (Figure 8)
Bankfull Channel Cross Sectional Area - 38.7 feet2
Existing Channel Cross Sectional Area - 38.7 to 44.1 feet2 (slightly enlarged)
Bank Height Ratio -1.0 to 1.3 (slight erosion hazard)
Width/Depth Ratio - 8 to 12
Project 02-113.34 18 Bishop Property I
i
i
i
UT to Crane Creek
Bankfull Channel Cross Sectional Area - 20.5 feet2
Existing Channel Cross Sectional Area - 23.5 to 30.7 feet2 (slightly enlarged)
Bank Height Ratio -1.1 to 1.2 (low erosion hazard)
Width/Depth Ratio - 5 to 6
UT to Reedy Creek
Bankfull Channel Cross Sectional Area -15.5 feet2
Existing Channel Cross Sectional Area -14.2 to 20.6 feet2 (slightly enlarged)
Bank Height Ratio - 1.0 to 1.2 (low erosion hazard)
Width/Depth Ratio - 6 to 8
Pattern
Camp Branch - Reach 1 (E-Type): Upstream of Headcut (Figure 8)
Sinuosity -1.18
UT to Crane Creek
Sinuosity - 1.8
UT to Reedy Creek
Sinuosity - 1.55
Profile
Camp Branch - Reach 1 (E-Type): Upstream of Headcut (Figure 8)
Valley Slope - 0.0047 rise/run
Water Surface Slope - 0.0029 rise/run
Riffle Slope - 0.0008 to 0.0167 rise/run
Pool Slope - 0 to.0.0013 rise/run
UT to Crane Creek
Valley Slope - 0.0025 rise/run
Water Surface Slope - 0.0014 rise/run
Riffle Slope - 0.0006 to 0.0033 rise/run
Pool Slope - 0 to 0.0006 rise/run
UT to Reedy Creek
Valley Slope - 0.0172 rise/run
Water Surface Slope - 0.0111 rise/run
Riffle Slope - 0.0105 to 0.0221 rise/run
Pool Slope - 0.0016 to 0.0182 rise/run
Substrate:
Camp Branch - Reach 1 (E-Type): Upstream of Headcut (Figure 8)
D50 - 7.2 millimeters
Project 02-113.34
19
Bishop Property
UT to Crane Creek
D50 - 1.9 millimeters
UT to Reedy Creek
D50 - 0.05 millimeters
4.2 Reference Forest Ecosystem
According to Mitigation Site Classification (MiST) guidelines (EPA 1990), Reference Forest
Ecosystems (RFEs) must be established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas on
which to model restoration efforts of the restoration site in relation to soils, hydrology, and
vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically stable climax communities and should represent
believed historical (pre-disturbance) conditions of the restoration site. Quantitative data
describing plant community composition and structure are collected at the RFEs and
subsequently applied as reference data for design of the restoration site planting scheme.
There were two RFE areas chosen to guide plant community restoration within the on-Site
floodplain, channel banks, and adjacent floodplain slopes. The RFEs are both found within the
Southern Outer Piedmont Ecoregion, one west and one northwest of the Site. Both RFEs
support plant community, landform, and hydrological characteristics that restoration efforts will
attempt to emulate. Circular, 0.1-acre plots were randomly established within the selected
RFEs. Data collected within each plot include 1) tree, shrub, and herb species composition; 2)
number of stems for each tree and shrub species; and 3) diameter at breast height (DBH) for
each tree and shrub species. Field data (Table 4A and 4B [Appendix B]) indicate importance
values (IV) of dominant tree species calculated based on relative density, dominance, and
frequency of tree. species composition (Smith 1980). Hydrology, surface topography, and
habitat features were also evaluated.
The northwestern RFE is located in the floodplain of the UT to Crane Creek in Rowan County,
North Carolina. Three 0.1-acre plots were established which best characterize expected
steady-state forest composition. Forest vegetation was dominated by swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii) (IV=0.17), green ash (IV=0.13), American elm (IV=0.10), and shagbark
hickory (Carya ovata) (IV=0.09) (Table 4A [Appendix B]). Portions of the canopy were also
dominated by willow oak (Quercus phellos), boxelder (Acer negundo), tulip poplar, black tupelo
(Nyssa sylvatica), and red maple.
The western RFE is located in the floodplain of Reedy Creek in Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. Within the RFE, vegetative sampling at four 0.1-acre plots indicate that forest tree
vegetation was dominated by tulip poplar (IV=0.12), American elm (IV=0.10), northern red oak
(Quercus rubra) (IV=0.08), and black walnut (Juglans nigra) (IV=0.07) (Table 4B [Appendix B]).
Other, less dominant tree species within the sample plots were green ash, boxelder, and
American sycamore.
Project 02-113.34 20 Bishop Property I
5.0 STREAM POWER AND SHEAR STRESS STUDIES
5.1 Discharge
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return interval
associated with the bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the
channel dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge (Gordon
et al. 1992). Research indicates that a stable stream channel may support a return interval for
bankfull discharge, or channel-forming discharge, between 1 to 2 years (Gordon et al. 1992,
Dunne and Leopold 1978). The methods of Rosgen (1996) indicate calibration of bankfull
dimensions based on a potential bankfull return interval between 1.3 and 1.5 years for rural
conditions.
Discharge within the Site appears to be dominated by a combination of upstream basin
catchment, groundwater flow, and precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999),
the bankfull discharge for a 2.9 square mile watershed is expected to average approximately
192 cubic feet per second. Current research estimates a bankfull discharge of 192 cubic feet
per second would be expected to occur approximately every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996).
5.2 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold
' 5.2.1 Stream Power
Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to in-flowing water and sediment load.
' One form of instability occurs when a stream is unable to transport its sediment load, leading to
aggradation, or deposition of sediment onto the stream bed. Conversely, when the ability of the
stream to transport sediment exceeds the availability of sediments entering a reach, and/or
' stability thresholds for materials forming the channel boundary are exceeded, erosion or
degradation occurs.
' Stream power is the measure of a stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream
power can be used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern, bed form, and sediment
transport of streams. Stream power may be measured over a stream reach (total stream
' power) or per unit of channel bed area. The total stream power equation is defined as:
E2 = pgQs

where Q = total stream power (ft-Ib/s-ft), p = density of water (lbg = gravitational
acceleration (ft/s2), Q = discharge (ft3/sec), and s = energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of
water (y = 62.4 lb/ft) is equal to the product of water density and gravitational acceleration, pg.
A general evaluation of power for a particular reach can be calculated using bankfull discharge
and water surface slope for the reach. As slopes become steeper and/or velocities increase,
stream power increases and more energy is available for re-working channel materials.
Straightening and clearing channels increases slope and velocity and thus stream power.
Alterations to the stream channel may conversely decrease stream power. In particular, over-
widening of a channel will dissipate energy of flow over a larger area. This process will
Project 02-113.34 21 Bishop Property
decrease stream power, allowing sediment to fall out of the water column, possibly leading to
aggradation of the streambed.
The relationship between a channel and its floodplain is also important in determining stream
power. Streams that remain within their banks at high flows tend to have higher stream power
and relatively coarser bed materials. In comparison, streams that flood over their banks onto
adjacent floodplains have lower stream power, transport finer sediments, and are more stable.
Stream power assessments can be useful in evaluating sediment discharge within a stream and
the deposition or erosion of sediments from the streambed.
5.2.2 Shear Stress
Shear stress, expressed as force per unit area, is a measure of the frictional force that flowing
water exerts on a streambed. Shear stress and sediment entrainment are affected by sediment
supply (size and amount), energy distribution within the channel, and frictional resistance of the
streambed and bank on water within the channel. These variables ultimately determine the
ability of a stream to efficiently transport bedload and suspended sediment.
For flow that is steady and uniform, the average boundary shear stress exerted by water on the
bed is defined as follows:
i=yRs
where = shear stress (lb/ft2), y = specific weight of water, R = hydraulic radius (ft), and s = the
energy slope (ft/ft). Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not
necessarily provide.a good estimate of bed shear at. any particular point. Adjustments to
account for local variability and instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied
based on channel form and irregularity. For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can
be assumed from the following equation:
timax = 1.5i
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
Tm. = 2.65 C(Rc /Wbkf) .5
s
where Rc = radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
Shear stress represents a difficult variable to predict due to variability of channel slope,
dimension, and pattern. Typically, as valley slope decreases channel depth and sinuosity
increase to maintain adequate shear stress values for bedload transport. Channels that have
higher shear stress values than required for bedload transport will scour bed and bank
materials, resulting in channel degradation. Channels with lower shear stress values than
needed for bedload transport will deposit sediment, resulting in channel aggradation.
Project 02-113.34 22 Bishop Property
The actual amount of work accomplished by a stream per unit of bed area depends on the
available power divided by the resistance offered by the channel sediments, plan form, and
vegetation. The stream power equation can thus be written as follows:
w = pgQs = iv
where w = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), ti = shear stress, and v =
average velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
w = EMM
0

H
[1

1

H
n
where Wbkf = width of stream at bankfull (ft).
5.2.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces exceed, or do not approach,
the resisting forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aggradation is a function of
relative magnitude of these forces over time. The interaction of flow within the boundary of
open channels is only imperfectly understood. Adequate analytical expressions describing this
interaction have yet to be developed for conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of
characterizing these processes rely heavily upon empirical formulas.
Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories:
1) maximum permissible velocity and 2) tractive force, or stream power and shear stress. The
former is advantageous in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream
power cannot be measured directly and must be computed from various flow parameters.
However, stream power and shear stress are generally better measures of fluid force on the
channel boundary than velocity.
Using these equations, stream power and shear stress were estimated for
1) Camp Branch Reach 1 and 2: Upstream of Headcut to Ford,
2) Camp Branch Reach 3: Downstream of Ford,
3) Dula Thoroughfare: Upstream Reach,
4) Dula Thoroughfare: Downstream Reach,
5) Camp Branch, Reference Reach,
6) UT to Reedy Creek (reference area),
7) UT to Crane Creek (reference area), and
8) Proposed on-Site conditions.
Important input values and output results (including stream power, shear stress, and per unit
shear power and shear stress) are presented in Table 5. Average stream velocity and
discharge values were calculated for existing on-Site stream reaches, reference reaches, and
proposed conditions.
Project 02-113.34 23 Bishop Property
I able 5. Stream Power (0) and Shear Stress (ti) Values
Water Total Shear
surface Stream Hydraulic Stress
Discharge Slope Power Radius (ti) Velocity
Q) (s) (2) (R) = y Rs N)
Stream Reach ft /sec ft/ft = Qs OW = A/WP I6/ft2 ft/sec ti v
Cam Branch
Reach 1 and 2 (E-type) Upstream to
Ford 168 0.0029 30.40 1.66 1.72 0.31 4.34 1
35
Reach 3 (G-type) Downstream of .
Ford 182 0.0041 46.56 2.62 1.86 0.48 4.33 2.06
Dula Thoroughfare
Upstream Reach 19.3 0.0228 27.46 4.58 0.65 0.93 3.78 3.52
Downstream Aggrading Reach 30 0.0019 3.56 0.25 0.47 0.06 4.29 0.24
Reference
Camp Branch 168 0.0029 30.40 1.55 1.64 0.30 4.34 1.29
UT to Reedy Creek 44 0.0111 30.48 2.93 1.17 0.81 2.84 2.31
UT to Crane Creek 119 0.0014 10.40 1.03 1.45 0.13 5.80 0.74
Proposed Cam Branch
Camp Branch upstream 168 0.0031 32.50 1.51 1.51 0.29 4.44 1.29
Camp Branch Middle Reach 182 0.0031 35.21 1.57 1.60 0.31 4.33 1.34
Proposed Dula non-braided reach
Proposed Dula 23 0.007 10.05 1.17 0.62 0.27 3.71 1.60
As would be expected, stream power and shear stress are lowest in the aggrading reaches
(Dula Thoroughfare) and low slope reference reaches. Conversely, stream power and shear
stress are highest in the on-Site reaches which are currently showing signs of degradation
(Camp Branch Reach 3). Stream power is the highest for the dredged and straightened, G-type
reach, where slopes have been steepened, cross-sectional area is high, width-to-depth ratio is
low, bank erosion is high, and the channel is highly incised.
In order to maintain sediment transport functions of a stable stream system, the non-braided
reaches of proposed channels should exhibit stream power and shear stress values that neither
aggrade nor degrade. Results of the analysis indicate that the non-braided proposed channel
reaches are expected to maintain stream power values of approximately 10 to 35 and shear
stress values of approximately 0.27 to 0.31 (similar to that of reference reaches and
considerably less than that of the existing degrading reaches). Therefore, the design channel is
expected to effectively transport sediment through the Site, resulting in stable channel
characteristics.
Project 02-113.34 24 Bishop Property
6.0 RESTORATION PLAN
' The primary goals of this restoration plan include 1) construction of stable, riffle-pool stream
complexes; 2) construction of a backwater slough, braided stream complex, 3) creation of a
natural vegetation buffer along enhanced and restored stream channels; 4) maximize the re-
establishment of historic wetland function; 5) restoration of wildlife functions associated with a
riparian corridor, and 6) protection of the Site in perpetuity.
' The complete restoration plan is depicted in Figure 9. The proposed restoration plan is
expected to provide the following:
1. 5,663 linear feet of stream restoration
2. 1,190 linear feet of stream enhancement - level 1 (restoration of dimension and profile)
3. 7,306 linear feet of stream enhancement - level 2 (remove from agriculture, remove
' spoil from the banks, and re-vegetate)
4. 11,250 linear feet of stream preservation
' 5. 10.2 acres of wetland preservation
6. 5.6 acres of wetland restoration
7. 0.9 acres of wetland enhancement
' Components of this plan may be modified based on construction or access constraints.
' Primary activities proposed at the Site include 1) stream enhancement/restoration, 2) wetland
enhancement/restoration, 3) soil scarification, and 4) plant community restoration. A monitoring
plan is outlined in Section 7 of this document.
' 6.1 Stream Enhancement/Restoration
This stream enhancement/restoration effort is designed to reconstruct stable, meandering
' streams that approximate hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative
to reference conditions. This effort consists of 1) stream reconstruction on new location,
2) stream reconstruction in place, and 3) ford construction. Geometric attributes for the
' proposed, stable channels are listed in Table 6A and 613 (Appendix B).
6.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location
' Reaches proposed for reconstruction on new location are depicted on Figure 9A to 9C. Primary
activities designed to reconstruct the channel on new location include 1) belt-width preparation
and grading, 2) floodplain bench excavation, 3) channel excavation, 4) installation of channel
' plugs, and 5) backfilling of the abandoned channel.
' Belt-width Preparation and Grading
Care will be taken to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within the belt-
width corridor which may provide design channel stability. Material excavated during grading
will be stockpiled immediately adjacent to channel segments to be abandoned and backfilled.
These segments will be backfilled after stream diversion is completed.
' Project 02-113.34 25 Bishop Property
Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to minimize compaction
of the underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed from floodplain surfaces upon
completion of construction activities.
Floodolain Bench Excavation
The creation of a bankfull, floodplain bench is expected to 1) remove the eroding material and
collapsing banks, 2) promote overbank flooding during bankfull flood events, 3) reduce the
erosive potential of flood waters, and 4) increase the width of the active floodplain. Bankfull
benches may be created by excavating the adjacent floodplain to bankfull elevations or filling
eroded/abandoned channel areas with suitable material. After excavation, or filling of the
bench, a relatively level floodplain surface is expected to be stabilized with suitable erosion
control measures. Planting of the bench with native floodplain vegetation is expected to reduce
erosion of bench sediments, reduce flow velocities in flood waters, filter pollutants, and provide
wildlife habitat.
After excavation of the floodplain bench, the design channel and updated profile survey will be
developed and the location of each meander wavelength plotted and staked along the profile.
Pool locations and relative frequency configurations may be modified in the field based on local
variations in the floodplain profile.
Channel Excavation
The channel will be constructed within the range of values depicted in Table 6A and 6B
(Appendix B). The channel will be excavated to the approximate dimensions depicted on
Figure 10. The channel should be excavated to the proposed channel depth and width.
Material excavated from the proposed design channel will be stockpiled adjacent to the reach of
channel to be backfilled or will be wasted on upland portions of the Bishop property, as directed
by the field engineer.
Stream banks and local belt-width area of constructed channels will be immediately planted with
shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Particular attention will be directed toward providing
vegetative cover and root growth along the outer bends of each stream meander. Live willow
stake revetments will be constructed as conceptually depicted in Figure 11. Available root mats
or biodegradable, erosion-control matting may be embedded into the break-in-slope to promote
more rapid development of an overhanging bank. Willow stakes will be purchased and/or
collected on-Site and inserted through the root/erosion mat into the underlying soil.
Channel Plugs
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel segments at locations depicted
on Figure 9A to 9C. The plugs will consist of low-permeability materials or hardened structures
designed to be of sufficient strength to withstand the erosive energy of surface flow events
across the Site. Dense clays may be imported from off-site or existing material, compacted
within the channel, may be suitable for plug construction. The plug will be sufficiently wide and
deep to form an imbedded overlap in the existing banks and channel bed.
Project 02-113.34 26 Bishop Property
' Channel Backfilling
After impermeable plugs are installed, the abandoned channel will be back-filled. Backfilling will
' be performed primarily by pushing stockpiled materials into the channel. The channel will be
filled to the extent that on-Site material is available and compacted to maximize
microtopographic variability, including ruts, ephemeral pools, and hummocks in the vicinity of
' the backfilled channel.
In-Stream Structures
' Stream restoration under natural stream design techniques normally involves the use of in-
stream structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat improvement. Primary
activities designed to achieve these objectives may include the installation of cross-vane weirs,
' J-hook vanes, and log vanes. '
Cross-vane Weirs
' The purpose of the vane is to 1) sustain bank stability, 2) direct high velocity flows during
bankfull events toward the center of the channel, 3) maintain average pool depth throughout the
' reach, 4) preserve water surface elevations and reconnect the adjacent floodplain to flooding
dynamics from the stream, and 5) modify energy distributions through increases in channel
roughness and local energy slopes during peak flows.

I

Cross-vane weirs will be constructed as conceptually depicted in Figure 12. Cross-vane weir
construction will be initiated by imbedding footer rocks into the stream bed for stability and to
prevent undercutting of the structure. Header rocks will then be placed atop the footer rocks at
the design elevation. Footer and header rocks create an arm that slopes from the center of the
channel upward at approximately 7 to 10 degrees, tying in at the bankfull floodplain elevation.
The cross-vane arms at both banks will be tied into the bank with a sill to eliminate the
possibility of water diverting around the structure. Once the header and footer stones are in
place, filter fabric will be buried into a trench excavated around the upstream side of the vane
arms. The filter fabric is then draped over the header rocks to force water over the vane. The
upstream side of the structure can then be backfilled with suitable material to the elevation of
the header stones.
J-hook/loa vanes
The primary purpose of the J-hook and log vanes is to direct high-velocity flows during bankfull
events toward the center of the channel. J-hook vanes will be constructed using the same type
and size of rock employed in the construction of cross-vane weirs (Figure 13). Log vanes will
be constructed utilizing large tree trunks harvested from the Site or imported from off-site. The
tree stem harvested for a log-vane arm must be long enough to be imbedded into the stream
channel and extend several feet into the floodplain (Figure 14). A trench will be dug into the
stream channel that is deep enough for the head of the log to be at or below the channel invert.
The trench is then extended into the floodplain and the log is set into the trench such that the
log arm is below the floodplain elevation. If the log is not of sufficient size to completely block
stream flow (gaps occur between the log and channel bed) then a footer log or stone footers will
be installed beneath the header log. Boulders will then be situated at the base of the log and at
the head of the log to hold the log in place.
Project 02-113.34 27 Bishop Property
Similar to a cross vane, the arm of the J-hook vane and the log vane (which forms an arm) must
slope from the center of the channel upward at approximately 7 to 10 degrees, tying in at the
bankfull floodplain elevation. Once these vanes are in place, filter fabric is toed into a trench on
the upstream side of the vane and draped over the structure to force water over the vane. The
upstream side of the structure is then backfilled with suitable material.
6.1.2 Stream Reconstruction In-Place
Stream reconstruction in-place is expected in 1) areas where channel pattern has not been
altered; however, the channel has incised due bed or bank erosion, or 2) areas where
backwater slough conditions will persist once restoration has been completed. Reaches
proposed for reconstruction in-place are depicted in Figure 9A to 9C. Primary activities
designed to achieve these objectives may include 1) installation of in-stream structures,
2) creation of a floodplain bench, 3) excavation of a backwater slough/braided channel system,
4) spoil removal, 5) backfilling abandoned channels, and 6) diversion of bankfull flows to historic
channels.
Installation of in-stream structures and creation of a floodplain bench has been described in
detail in Section 6.1.1 (Stream Reconstruction on New Location) of this document. The design,
installation, and function of in-stream structures and floodplain bench are similar for stream
reconstruction in-place.
Excavation of a Backwater Slough/Braided Channel System
Backwater slough/braided channel systems will be designed to mimic reference wetland and
stream conditions found within the Rocky River floodplain. Conditions include 1) convoluted
interception of groundwater and flood flows, 2) average slope of upland-wetland interface and
slough surface, 3) micro-topographic variation along the slough surface, and 4) soil modification
and debris deposition.
Backwater slough/braided channel construction will occur within, and adjacent to,* the existing
Dula Thoroughfare aggrading ditch/channel (Figure 9B). Construction of the backwater
slough/braided channel system will initiate at the confluence of Dula Thoroughfare and the
Rocky River floodplain. The system will extend approximately 1195 feet downstream as a
series of shallow, irregularly shaped depressions interspersed between shallow, braided stream
channels. The depressions will range to a maximum of 1-foot below the proposed surface
elevation in the center of the depression. The isolated depressions are expected to fill with
organic matter and sediment, with development of braided channel occurring passively over
time.
Spoil Removal
Spoil material deposited adjacent to the downstream reaches of Dula Thoroughfare and the UT
to Dula Thoroughfare will be removed from channel banks and deposited in abandoned
channels or wasted in upland portions of the Site/adjacent agricultural fields. Spoil removal
areas are depicted in Figure 9B and 9C. Removal of spoil material is expected to facilitate
overbank flooding, thereby extending floodprone areas and reducing scour potential of local
flood flows.
Project 02-113.34 28 Bishop Property
'
Backfilling Abandoned Channels
Several reaches of the UT to Dula Thoroughfare are characterized by shoot cutoffs; secondary
channels that have been blocked from normal flows by spoil castings; and excavated channels
adjacent to an historic, abandoned channel. Backfilling of these abandoned channels with spoil
material or material excavated from the floodplain will redirect stream flow through the historic,
abandoned reaches of channel.
Diversion of Bankfull Flows
Bankfull discharge currently appears to be re-directed through a ditch connecting the
downstream reach of Dula Thoroughfare to the Rocky River. This ditch effectively splits
stormwater discharge from Dula Thoroughfare during bankfull flood events. Conversely, the
ditch transmits water to Dula Thoroughfare during high volume flood flows from the Rocky River.
Filling this ditch, and redirecting bankfull discharge through Dula Thoroughfare will allow for
"channel forming„ flows to continue natural evolutionary channel processes within on-Site and
downstream reaches of Dula Thoroughfare.
6.1.3 Ford Construction
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation of three channel fords to allow access to
portions of the property isolated by the conservation easement and/or stream and wetland
restoration activities. Proposed channel ford locations are depicted on Figure 9. The fords are
expected to consist of shallow depressions in stream banks where vehicular crossings can be
made (Figure 15). The fords will be constructed of hydraulically stable rip-rap or suitable rock
and will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated vehicular traffic. Approach grades
to the ford will be at a minimum 15:1 slope and constructed of hard, scour-resistant crushed
rock or other permeable material, which is free of fines. The bed elevation of the ford will equal
the stream bed elevation above and below the ford to reduce the risk of headcutting.
6.2 Wetland Enhancement/Restoration
' Site alterations to wetland areas and/or areas underlain by hydric soils are designed to re-
establish a fully functioning wetland system which will provide surface water storage, nutrient
cycling, removal of imported elements and compounds, and will create a variety and abundance
' of wildlife habitat. Wetland enhancement/restoration activities are expected to restore
approximately 5.6 acres of jurisdictional wetland and enhance approximately 0.9 acre of
jurisdictional wetland (Figure 9). The proposed conservation easement also encompasses
' approximately 10.2 acres of existing, relatively undisturbed jurisdictional wetland which will be
preserved in-perpetuity.
' Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soil have been impacted by vegetative clearing, earth
movement associated with the dredging and straightening of Dula Thoroughfare and
compaction by placement of spoil on the floodplain. Wetland enhancement/restoration options
' will focus on 1) the establishment of backwater slough/braided channel systems, 2) excavation
and grading of elevated spoil and sediment embankments, and 3) reestablishing hydrophytic
vegetation.
Establishment of Backwater Slough / Braided Channel Systems
Project 02-113.34 29 Bishop Property
The existing dredged and straightened reach of Dula Thoroughfare represents the primary on-
Site wetland restoration feature. Currently, Dula Thoroughfare drains from the valley wall
slopes as a channelized, E-type stream. Upon entering the Rocky River Floodplain, the channel
has been dredged and straightened and is currently characterized as a shallow, wide,
slackwater ditch that has been isolated from the adjacent floodplain. Measures outlined in
Section 6.2.1 (Stream Reconstruction In-Place - Excavation of a Backwater Sough/Braided
Channel System), including excavation of a floodplain and shallow non-linear depressions
connected by braided channel systems is expected to result in approximately 5.6 acres of
jurisdictional wetland restoration within the Rocky River floodplain.
It should be noted that floodplains adjacent to the dredged and straightened reach of Dula
Thoroughfare are underlain by brightly colored soils (approximately 10YR 4/4 to 10YR 4/6),
which are characteristic of wetlands in the area. USACE representatives conducted a field visit
to the Site on January 13, 2004 (Notification of Jurisdictional Determination can be found in
Appendix F), and confirmed these brightly colored soils were indicative of a hydric soil for the
region.
Excavation and Gradinq of Elevated Spoil and Sediment Embankments
Reaches of Dula Thoroughfare and its UT have experienced both natural and unnatural
sediment deposition. Spoil piles appear to have been cast adjacent to the channels during
dredging and straightening of the stream or during agricultural field clearing. Major flood events
may have also deposited additional sediment adjacent to stream banks from eroding banks and
upstream agricultural fields. The removal of spoil material and/or filling of on-Site ditches with
spoil material represent a critical element of wetland restoration.
Hydrophytic Vegetation
On-Site wetland areas have endured significant disturbance from land use activities such as
land clearing, row crop agriculture, and other anthropogenic maintenance. Wetland areas will
be re-vegetated with native vegetation typical of wetland communities in the region. Emphasis
will focus on developing a diverse plant assemblage. Sections 6.4 (Plant Community
Restoration) and 6.4.2 (Planting Plan) provide detailed information concerning community
species associations. Re-vegetation of portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils is expected
to represent an important wetland enhancement/restoration component.
6.3 Floodplain Soil Scarification
Microtopography and differential drainage rates within localized floodplain areas represent
important components of floodplain functions. Reference forests in the region exhibit complex
surface microtopography. Small concavities, swales, exposed root systems, seasonal pools,
oxbows, and hummocks associated with vegetative growth and hydrological patterns are
scattered throughout these systems. As discussed in the stream reconstruction section, efforts.
to advance the development of characteristic surface microtopography will be implemented.
In areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping or scarification will be performed.
After construction, the soil surface is expected to exhibit complex microtopography ranging to
1 foot vertical asymmetry across local reaches of the landscape. Subsequently, community
restoration will be initiated on complex floodplain surfaces.
Project 02-113.34 30 Bishop Property 1
' 6.4 Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and stream-side habitat allows for development and expansion
' of characteristic species across the landscape, in addition to reducing the presence of invasive
species. Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to diversity and provide
secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds,
' amphibians, and other wildlife.
RFE data, on-Site observations, and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural
i Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were used to develop the primary
plant community associations that will be promoted during community restoration activities.
' These community associations include 1) stream-side assemblage, 2) bottomland hardwood
forest, and 3) slope forest (Figure 16). Figure 17 identifies the location, based on elevation and
position relative to restored streams and wetlands, of each target community to be planted.
' Planting elements within each map unit are listed below.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
' 1. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
2. American elm (Ulmus americana)
3. Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
' 4. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
5. Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
6. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
' 7. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
8. Southern red oak (Quercus falcata)
9. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
' 10. American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
' Stream-Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
' 3. River birch (Betula nigra)
4. American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
5. Swamp dogwood (Cornus stricta)
' 6. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
7. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
' 8. Arrow-wood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum)
9. Possumhaw viburnum (Viburnum nudum)
10. Highbush blueberry (Vaccmium corymbosum)
' Slope Forest
1. Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa)
2. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
' 3. White oak (Quercus alba)
4. Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum)
' 5. American holly (Ilex opaca)
Project 02-113.34 31 Bishop Property
6. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
Stream-side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid
growth rate, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and
overbank flood events. Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted within 15 feet of the
channel throughout the meander belt-width. Shrub elements will be planted along the banks of
the reconstructed stream, concentrated along outer bends.
Bottomland hardwood forest vegetation is targeted for areas located in the floodplain and
backwater slough/braided channel system. Species common along slope forests will be planted
on slopes adjacent to the floodplain.
The following planting plan is the blueprint for community restoration. The anticipated results
stated in the Success Criteria (Section 7.8) are expected to reflect potential vegetative
conditions achieved after steady-state conditions prevail over time.
6.5 Planting Plan
The purpose of a planting plan is to re-establish vegetative community patterns across the
landscape. The plan consists of 1) acquisition of available plant species, 2) implementation of
proposed Site preparation, and 3) planting of selected species.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources.
Advance notification to nurseries (1 year) will facilitate availability of various non-commercial
elements.
Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified map areas at a density of
approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the streamside
assemblage will be planted at a density of 1360 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Table 7
depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation association.
Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during
the dormant period and set root during the spring season. A total of 63,454 diagnostic tree and
shrub seedlings may be planted during restoration.
Project 02-113.34 32 Bishop Property
Table 7- Planting Plan

Vegetation
Association Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
Stream-side
Assemblage

Slope Forest
Backwater
Slough

Total
Area acres 51. 7 4.1 27. 2 6.2

Species number

planted
f
Fotci
l
number
p
lanted
% of

total
number

planted
% of

total
number

planted
% of

total
Number

Planted
Swam Chestnut Oak 3516 10 633 15 4149
American Elm 3516 10 3516
Su arber 1758 5 1758
Green Ash 7031 20 633 15 7664
Sha bark Hickory 3516 10 3516
Willow Oak 3516 10 3516
Northern Red Oak 1758 5 1758
Southern Red Oak 1758 5 1758
Black Gum 3516 10 3516
American Sycamore 5274 15 558 10 5832
River Birch 558 10 558
Swam Dogwood 279 5 279
Black Willow 1115 20 1115
Tag Alder 558 10 633 15 1191
Buttonbush 279 5 422 10 701
Elderberry 558 10 558
Arrow-wood Vibernum 558 10 558
Possumhaw Vibernum 558 10 558
Hi hbush Blueberry 558 10 558
Mockernut Hickory 3699 20 3699
Pignut Hickory 3699 20 3699
White Oak 3699 20 3699
Sourwood 3699 20 3699
American Holly 1850 10 1850
Flowering Dogwood 1850 10 1850
Overcu Oak 633 15 633
Swam Cottonwood 633 15 633
Cher bark Oak 633 15 633
Total 35159 100 5579 100 18496 100 4220 100 63454
Project 02-113.34 33 Bishop Property
7.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of Site restoration efforts will be performed for the first five growing seasons following
site construction. If necessary, monitoring will continue through additional growing seasons.
Monitoring is proposed for single-strand stream channels, as well as wetland components of
hydrology and vegetation. A general Site monitoring plan is depicted in Figure 18.
Stream measurements are not proposed in the backwater slough/braided channel system due
to typical characteristics of a D-type {braided) stream consisting of multiple braided channels.
D-type stream systems are not conducive to measurement of pattern, dimension, and profile;
therefore, the stream will be visually assessed and photographically documented annually to
semi-annually and any potential problem area(s) will be identified. If a problem area is noted
during the review, the area will be evaluated to determine the corrective action required to
resolve the problem.
7.1 Stream Monitoring
Site stream reaches proposed to be monitored for geometric activity are conceptually depicted
in Figure 18. Each stream reach will extend for a minimum of 450 feet along the restored
channel. Annual fall monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles
and pools, pebble counts, and a water surface profile of the channel. The data will be
presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will include 1) cross-sectional
area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width-to-depth ratio, 6)
meander wavelength, 7) belt-width, 8) water surface slope, 9) sinuosity, and 10) stream
substrate composition. The stream will subsequently be classified according to stream
geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology will be
tracked and reported by comparing data in each successive monitoring year.
7.2 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream
system. Stream restoration success criteria will follow the constructs outlined by interagency
guidance (Stream Mitigation Guidelines [USACE et. al. 2003]).
The channel configuration will be measured on an annual basis in order to track changes in
channel geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to determine the success in
restoring stream channel stability. Specifically, the channel should exhibit the following
characteristics:
1) Insignificant change in dimension from as-built measurements or the previous years
monitoring measurements.
2) Minor changes in channel dimension are allowed; however, dimension changes
should not represent a trend towards instability (e.g. increased width to depth ratio or
decreased width to depth ratio with decreased entrenchment ratio).
3) Little change in longitudinal profile.
4) Pool/riffle spacing should remain fairly constant.
5) Pools should not be aggrading and riffles should not scour.
Project 02-113.34 34 Bishop Property
' 6) Pebble count should trend toward a desired bed material.
' The field indicator of bankfull will be described in each monitoring year and indicated on a
representative channel cross-section figure. If the stream channel is down-cutting or the
channel width is enlarging due to bank erosion, additional bank or slope stabilization methods
' may be employed.
The stream is expected to maintain shear stress values to adequately transport sediment
' through the Site. Pebble counts will be conducted annually to determine D50 and D84 values
within the restored stream. Pebble counts would be expected to indicate a general coarsening
of materials on the riffles throughout the monitoring period.
' Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred.
Failure of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure,
' abandonment of the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring
' Groundwater monitoring gauges (one gauge within reference and four gauges on-Site) will be
installed to monitor groundwater elevations after hydrological modifications are performed.
' Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals necessary to
satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each design unit (EPA 1990).
' 7.4 Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 12.5 percent of
the growing season at lower landscape positions, during average climatic conditions. Upper
' landscape reaches may exhibit surface saturation/inundation between 5 percent and
12.5 percent of the growing season based on groundwater gauge data. These areas are
expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by
vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed in these
areas.
' 7.5 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EEP
Vegetation Monitoring Requirements (draft 27 August 2004). A general discussion of the
' restoration monitoring program is provided. A photographic record of plant growth should be
included in each annual monitoring report, in addition to the necessary data forms.
' After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be
performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density.
' Supplemental planting and additional Site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
' quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed annually, between May and September,
until the vegetation success criterion is achieved.
t
' Project 02-113.34 35 Bishop Property
During quantitative vegetation sampling in summer of the first year, approximately seven
sample plots will be randomly placed within the Site. Sample-plot distributions are expected to
resemble locations depicted in Figure 18; however, best professional judgment may be
necessary to establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In
each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and
species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will
also be recorded.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb assemblages as part of the
vegetation success criteria. Development of floodplain forests over several decades will dictate
the success in migration and establishment of desired understory and groundcover populations.
Visual estimates of the percent cover of herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be
reported for information purposes.
7.8 Vegetation Success Criteria
Tables and discussion for each of the following success criteria will be provided with each
report. The criteria include cover for each species in each plot, strata presence for each
species in each plot and stem counts of each planted species in each plot.
Project 02-113.34 36 Bishop Property
8.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J. L. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Chang, Howard H. 1988. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
' Clarke, Arthur H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae),. Part II: Lasmiaona
and Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 399:1-75.
' Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
' Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
' Dunne, D. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company. N.Y.
' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification (MIST).
EPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
' Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction for
' Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. U.S. Geological
' Society (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
' Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, and R.
' Everhart. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
N.C. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
' Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. USDA Forest Service.
' Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for
the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Project 02-113.34 37 Bishop Property
Keferl Eugene P. and R. M. Shelly. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, Lasmigona decorata and the Carolina Elktoe, Alasmidonta robusta. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 27pp.
Marble, A.D. 1992. A Guide to Wetland Functional Design. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor,
Michigan
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2000. Soil Survey of Anson County, North
Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2004. DRAFT Vegetation
Monitoring Requirements. Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Smith, R. L. 1980. Ecology and Field Biology, Third Edition. Harper and Row, New York. 835
PP.
The Scientific Council of Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A Report on the
Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna.
283pp.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Threatened and Endangered Species
in North Carolina. Carolina Heelsplitter in North Carolina.
http://southeast.fws.gov/es/county%201ists.htm. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (3-20-
03).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1996. Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 30 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery
Plan. Atlanta, GA. 28 pp.
Project 02-113.34 38 Bishop Property
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for
the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery
Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974. State of North
Carolina.
Project 02-113.34 39 Bishop Property

F

1

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

r

1

77

Dwn by
HJS
Figure
EcoSclence SITE LOCATION Ckdby WGL
Corporation Bishop Site Restoration Planning Dote:
SEPT 2004
Raleigh, North Carolina Anson County, North Carolina Project
02-113.34

00 cn
-r m

l ?
M
44
fem. , . 9
s
_ i
Irk-,
1
e
L

?
t W

1 , w

0
?+ c? D Z Z

?
N r ?t
N
0
m ° C
W N m mm
S N)
A N
A

4:4
t, t
T
M O
W
a = m
?U) Cl)
;L o
=3
N D-12
OO
Z ;u -
C) u
0

O
Z m

n
O
s
T
0 q n
n
o ~?
v ??

.F.
N1
J

0 N r?? _J r41
? 1 1 ''nr
SITE y`
LOCATION
r 1C H1"'1tJNr-'o
•A
R
D- by.
USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP czd MAF Figure
EcoScience by wGL
Corporation Bishop Site Restoration Planning Dete
- SEPT 2004
Raleigh, North Carolina Anson County, North Carolina Prgect
02-113.34
.y
5 ?
O I
000
•

/
t

3

Z
MQ N
W ?
? Q M
` Z O
E _
/ '
t Q
.t
1
t .
r
1
t ? 2
w
ll J
N
H
d N
U O
? a m
s
p U o o
a
W
Q
0
Z
m
O
m
f-
a _
i
t ??
' m
t
W
N?
?
Q
?
Z Cl)
N
%

' 4-... - - _-
--_ -
WN -.. r - -

Q 1
? ?
o

? t
?
? I
.
41
r
° o
oo c
o
N
o v
i
-
t /

•• t m
•? I o
?

V
Z
E
z
Q
J (0
a ._
Z
>-0 U
Q o
Z
a0
H
Q c
O?U
~ Lw o
r ?
N Q
a
O
N
m
J o
r L
U C Z
?:`/ m
Dwn by
MAF Figure
EcoScience NRCS SOILS MAP Ckdby WGL
Corporation Bishop Site Restoration Planning Date
Raleigh North Carolina Anson County, North Carolina Project SEPT 2004 5
,
L02-113.34
as as as a ?¦¦ a a a a a a as a as a a a a a
r
I It
1?
Ln c)
f m
0 r^??
-0 c
=4 VC
CT >
Lo 0
mm;u ;..
?DZ tx
?mD
t s •: cr
zr 1
rri
,? r ;Y '?` ` y f r ~
r: ?^
J /^
.46
? mmC)'r
im0 ?l y
DDO ?-?
CIO,
om?
41
DO
:8 - ?? VIZ fi ?
r
f
\ tit _r=x
h n1' _.
??e_ cot
Y
J N W _.t,. ?y n
AV-
00
C1 O
o
D
r
m
z
m
m
m
O
co
O
O
a - _-• C r rn
rs "Jr 7
\ \ yS Ln v LIl
• \ i - .+\?. ,'fir ?
o S' ? y
V
.4 rn
?,. d °? \? m Z z,
r. m
f 9 +,T Z D
)8y 1J,
f __ ` f .
C
00,
m
r
r' / 1

II
S k
n n m c') n
Z -? m

m
n
v /
1
C)
-a -V p
X K m m m ^n M

D
< N

cn

cn

N U
Z
-? Z --I -I -I W O v
p O A (p Z
z m
n m
D m
D D
o r
m K: K: K 3
a m cn cn cn
`
°
V1 n U
m
m V1 -i
K C r
m ZQ D
z m z
o
V)
m © Z
o - O Z mn
? N Cl) V' O
D O A
z G7 2
-? Z
_ Z z CJ?
ZO?ocl)y cn l a o O?
V N a M mn? o°
o
rnC r t w (D•
c ZD
01
W Oo N D
Z C) o r?-l- a O
O n
O G w
;, C O ?
L_ _L _LL

i;
11
1'11
i?
IJ
. f?
s

{J
C
m-4Do
=mD

/r.'
4
lo?ool

i
QSA
fT1 N
DD r

co
U)
n O
D
m

Z

m
m
i

f-D O
00
O
O
n n -
rn O n
M tJ1 Q cn cn '-t Q
W
O
n
O
mo rz
m Z? Ate' ?•?
N
0 o 0
o D? ?Z ] O (? -LL
0 ??- J
V
rij 11/• /l r i? lif
.L rl? n r C?"
s
C4
Al 4p
M 'A
-? 4 g
t 2
-16
\
m o
" >O 1 Q
z
AM2 Km CA m-0
m D
+1/ Z C +{ C) co
Fri C'C ° n
'c
C) co
X1A / „' 2 zDD1
/?.
-s W Z J6

O
N
O
O
A
O
0
r ?
CD O
0
O
O
f
o OD
CD O
O
O_
O
O
n
N
O
Cu O
(D O
Linear (Across Valley) Distance in Feet
o C,, (n
0 0
0 O o

r
I?
i
•

X-SECTI?n? 3

•
•
1

?
05
J
l
I
N
O
0
A
O
O
O
O
5
O
O

6(A
O O
Z
f-W N O
0 (1) au

'
7
O m
N
O ?
0 n
O tNi7 n j 0 O O
X
3 OC
3 - O(n
CD 0 0
on
•
m C°?
? N(D
o nc
?
TL (D n
M
_-:3 v So v 0 0
(D (n
0 C p 3 O
0 30?N

0
7 ;1
Q (D o?

o

C) C
(D ?F

D =C<
n.
D
n
in
o
O
N (D < -0
C _:D
! N O
D
cn O
? r'
O
7
N
rD
Z
m
W Cu m CD
0 0 0 0

c c c c O
S
D
an O
O
(D X a 0 N.
O S (NJ) 0

(D 3 N? O
?'''
n
O
0 00)-
,
-0 O -O p

gin' N

7 O
p
o
N D (D
. ? 0
41
_
0
(A
m
(n (D
Cn (D A
ou -0
U!

::E mWm a)
o O o 0
O C C C C O
SDK*n =
o o
l
x X.
o (D N
J
(n
? 0
O
O
-ip
0 CO
-0 3 00 o
g
'0 0
O CD O C"4 _,
O
CD 73 -0 N 0 N O
?? 0
D' 0

D N D n
N
0 N (D

O (A
O W m
A
I± v . O
in

Cn
O
O
I
I I
) 1
E ,) E z1
CD m C m
CD _6
o-n n
n = S
C
N O
3
0
o
o =
Q (D
0
o-
n
C
aJaJmcc
0 00 0

F ? F F
C C C C O
D n
<

°xoo
ID
O 3 ?Ul
?0 c
m3 N
N lD
CD
rn
M 0
D 07
? 0 N
S O
S
D O

.
l
N N

W O
0
O
- N .. O

N
O
? ?
N O
0
0
.- n
(n N
-0

m
(D 0)
?
O
00
O
Elevation in Feet
Elevation in Feet
Elevation in Feet
o (.0 o o n
M OD O N A
CO CO n o 0
n w O N
Elevation in Feet
o n 0 n
0 N) -11. CY)
?GoccCoco N
-•0000 O

00
O
o
C C C C
D n
omxao
O
(A 00 ? v'
C O
(/) O N
-
V) n
O ?pCj _.
n :3 a O O

O
D O

Z
D _ D
4 CO N _
N
0

0
N o
o
S 00 C?
O 00
O
_
1+
J
O
n
N (D
O

m
(D
O

o
-1) m OJ
r L< D
O Nz
p m
Z C=
nr
m r 00
O ? O
M 0
D M
.Z)
m
D
gauauaum
0 O O O
a00>>
? J T T T.' 7C
O C C C C O
(1) -"DK?n S
0 0 a O o
O
9 N
O (n
003 0
0 0 C O
UJ (D 3 O O
(f) p M pCT.n_+ p
n (D -O (D 0
_0 In
O

0
D ? O
n
O D
Z (D N CD
O O N (D

A Cn ? 0
- I + 00 (D

J O

in
Elevation in Feet
(.0 0 0 0 0
00 O N A rn

O O O C
O N 41 c
D
C.+
CC)
n
O
Cf)
N
(n
m
n
O
Z
(D
V
OD
N
n
O
(n
Cn
N
m
n
O
Z
C.+
m
Elevation in Feet
Co o n o
aD O N 41
i
Co n n 0
OD O N -A
:E ac Cia cc cc 0
O O O ?
? F F T 7 r

O C C C C
?DK:* n
(<D 0 E 0
003 E'N N
Qi0 C
w O
• 3
-
0
O)
CO1
O(D 0 n
O S
N O O
D' 4
n
T! (D N D N p
O NN p O
(n
(f) 0)
_
O

C O C4
I+ Q' p
n O

-? O
0
O
Z
(n n
(D
9 _. O
rn ?
m
-a N
o ID
O
DO
O
0
J
O
n
70
O
(f)
C/)
N
m
n
O
Z
Cn
E = Z o , 0 u
" a l1J
am OZ MIM
- ?/
ra > LA Ch CA
00 1
C 20 Z
D Ej I D o 0 1--?
z
CA C
r--r
M Z 20 o z z -4 U)
m
_ ?-
a0 O N -PI O)
co co 0 0 0
O) 00 O N A

Linear (Across Valley) Distance in Feet
CA L J
O O O O
O O O O
O
N
O
O
0
0

DO
O
O
r
O
O
O
O
f
O
< O
O O
O
O
O
7
n
O N
O
O
O
m
O
O
rn
O
O
do
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
C
C

•
r

r'
x `=C ION

i

i i
l
t
(

d I
I
D.
> -- _
n
a In
N o
O
? o
o =
a 0
a
n

O
O
I w C)
C)
mm
r
O
m
N
O
O
O
O
0)
O
O
00
O
O
0
O
O
N _
N
D >
O
:j O
O
z
O
O
45
C
C
a
c
C
r,
C
C
c
n
n
C
C
n
t
C
C
Cr+ Lr J
O O O
O O O
ca c0 (0 cO O cD c0 cD O O
N W A Un 0) J CC) O O
Dm ?M oz m? O
-0= ZO =Z ?Z Op z O r?
N
D o M o C ? O z o
f
N - m R1 C O Oz Z -? C/)
Mn ('D
-+
Z
z O ^? n ` 20
D Z O M
° 2 N w C?

I

X-SECTION 6
16.32

I

^mm CDM
=rmx CmX CAM
Cx

C7 N
O 0 N _

m =j
z Dr-z
?r-

nZ
M0 O MO
< m0
n >n
D
o D m
=
= o
m O D _0z r-D
m?
Qzm C ??
---- D
0 r O
_ n Z

ELEVATION IN FEET
co co co 0 0 co co (0 o 0
N (A 41 CP m J aD CO O
O
m
m

Line D, :Across Valley) Distance in Feet
0 0 0 0 o Elevation in Feet Elevation in Feet
° 0 0 0 0
- T co cD co p p O O co co O O
r N A 0) aO O N N A CT 00 O N
g m m m m 0 m m CO m 0
0 0 0 0 O O O O
m acccc N cccc
- - - - - _ - - N
?D?_?n O Do ?n O
Z (mD Ox d O (D x 0. O
N 0 0 3 9 W 0 3 ; N
0 O-tO c 'O C
_ A
° -u -P,
? Q1 CD ° W(?p O
n Q
O CID QOL-? (D Q
O (D O N (D a N
00 (D N D = 0 N = 00
0 (,r 0 ° n C.l C-4 O
(7
° N 00 .ZJ - N of
V O O O C„i 0 0 O
N
N N co
,+ N ? 2
O O Cn Q Cn
0
° m N' O m
FA,
n
Z
0 5 0 00
0 :3 C)
0 m C -n
0
(D CD
cD T N o
CID 41 o
0 0
0
0
0 rn rn
0 C
r
(D
N CO 00
O 0 °
Q 0
a
f N )l O O
< O N W ?10 (a (0 D a) 00 ° ° ° NA 07 CO O o
a ? O N O N
(D O
O
0
7
(D o
r- m m
r x D
O
(mD O
(^ Du Q Z C
o ? O r
r
O C)
O n
M
m
D M
N ?
O m
O D
O
Elevation in Feet Elevation in Feet
CD CD CO CD Ca (a CO Ca Co (0 Ca o
N OD O N ? 01 CID O N A C) OD 0
N mmmm 0 ::E mmCOCO 0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 7 7 0 7 >
T. 7c 7C T. _ ?c ?c ?c ?c
C C C C N O C C C C N
Do ?n 0 ADO ?n o
(D x Q° a (D x a0
0 U, s 0
O ?(A O o 3 n
o ,o a?O c
(D3?? o -a3C0(ND 0
Q n
-10 CD - O O -O (D O CN
0
C) 9? O a1 J ?? O CT)
O S o . D' :T O N
O W D = C? (O N D = Cry
O 0 ° n N N a a (?
N, ? N - (I7 .. N. 00 .-0
OD 0
(P O O ? A 0 O O0
N V O N N _
O co I'f O cn
0 o m ° m
C) U) D O ° ? D O ° ?
• ? O ? O
C) n
Z C., (p (D Z
O C,a CT OD O p O
0
O p O C O m m
CD (D
(p _ O (D _ _
?- Z ? o 41 (D
N O O
O n a ?v m -D rn
?- N
o 'C O 0 a n
o n rFO?: Qo o 0
X c ° 0
- ? 0
3 0 3--O?
a _
O ?j o °.I ?(n
0 r,c n aD
^o DcON CD 0m 0 °
a I' :3
?
0- O t0 N 0-1 N _ N N
O O
a p -O T ;' O O CO co C0 CO CD a Q (D ID
0 ?. 0 c CD 0 ?. 0 CID O N 0) CO
Ln
-PI o O m o --.-.0 3
O N
cn 0 0- 0 O O CO CO cD CO Ca O
- O N -? (3) CO C
CD C (7D Om
N ? 1
(D
a
in
F o ? n
N f -_ O - ? / 1
v m m " Z
D p O Z .? m O
- (n N '-t
CO -7 ° r D z m z 0 Cn CA < O
nn 0
0 20 z =1
c O
N V) - w m 0 r? : (D? ?
= z Z-< 0
O n
Z
CA 0 (A 0

t'

0

.k

11

I

i
i
I
? m m io¦ m m m m m m mommim m m m m m m m
Li-ieor (Across Valley) Distance in Feet ELEVATION IN FEET
(,J Cm J CO
O o O O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 (D CO c0 (0 Co (0
O O O O O N C.^+ A CP (P J oo (0 O N cA ? CP
O O
Z 0
° < ° r
m
m
N
Q7
N °
o °
0
N
ao
O
0? O
0
CN
O
O) O
O O
O
(4
N
00 O
o O
O
C4
41
O O
O O
0
r W
rn
co °
N
0 O
o °
0 X-S
f
o 00
< 0
o 41 o
CD o
(n
o ?
- O
o O 0
n O Z O
N O
T -P
CD N
O O
O
O
O
A
A
M N O
O o
O
O
41
a)
N
N
0
0
N O
A
O
O
(.n
N
O
O
N
00
O
0 O
M
W
O
L
O C,j u J 00 00 00 00 00 DO co 00 00 00 CO (D CO CO (0 CO
o O O O O O N W CP J CO (0 0 N (,J A U
C) O o O O
Z
/??
C r
W " ?' ?D Z0 =z D0N? o O
C) n Z = (7
71 m
D
Zw r ° Z0 o G?•?
0 f7 ? ? Z frt. 5
C, 0 2
a z a I

?

o

r/ i
I
a

i

I
j
f
1
O?
o
? C7

0
0
0
a

26?P6 - -

X ECTIO o
36? ?
__--1 =CTION
37 st

I i
I
m x
f
OV7 ?U~ j
n
=
?
N
r-Z n
?„ i M G7 M
' o
I
D C7 m

Z Fri -
O
<
Z
Z b

?
r
? O
? Z
Q

0
O
au
O
o
°
U
N
O
?
-P
O
O
ism
Linear (Across Valley) Distance in Feet
W
o O
O n
C
1,1
C
C
C
C
CD
0
O
0
f
p_
(D
O
O C
C
n C
CD
m
n
rD
C
C
C
C
C
O
O
X v2
- -x-SFCTIOti
v ;TI^f? ..
I
1
C
a
(/1
mm
D
m
D
C)
2
N
O
O
W
O
O
m m a7
r X D
O ? Z
Z
O C
m r
r
0
O O
;)
m D
O
D m
m
D
r
D
z
m
z
W N O
o n -u cL w a) D
S= m
?o 0-.00° cDn cn
O n n OO OO
X O C O N

(D -
O ? N
o n
ort 0 0 0
0?
9 to
(
o we
o - n
0
F CD =r O v, 0 0
NN
a O - Oj 3 N
o 3007
,0 Ln
O
O O m
0 :3
5' F
0
0 =(n
n
o •,o
=CD -<
r ..o
7 N (D oo
n O < +0
-O O - ?
O
(D
N O (D
7
CD

N
J J 00 00
(J 00 O N
J
n
m
O
(A
N
Cn
m
n
O
z
O
m
ti
=m z
D co Q
oac Mv_ °z My D? o
n W
10 =Cn m =z o ?0NC/) o o (f+...
rT1 N o C , zz DO z_ -
m O Na m? I= m to m C m p ?-+ 1 N P? rC
N) 0
Cn --4 -4
cJ O ??3 ?z D Z p
w
g co co Co a)
0 0 0 0
a 7 O 0 O
Elevation in Feet
00 (0 (D ?D
CA O N A
SFFFF O
c c c c
D
< ao
o
?•7?
O p O

a?O C

DLN
CD
f
N

O _
O
?
D
O p
O
(D O N O
s? 0 O
o
D"?
D ?
o
N
N O O
o - (D
? n
? o m
00 cn
I+ -Ti
(D C,4
O O
(n
a)a)C)w
O p O o
N
n
O
N
U1
N
m
n
O
z
O
CD (0 ?D ?D
co O N A
Elevation in Feet
w (o cO ,o
co O N A

C C C C
D
N a p S
? N
O ? ? N O
p C
(D 3
0 rv O
o
.
O ? n 0

o
(D O
rn 0 O
O N
7 -
D Og N
D O
o
? n
? o rn
A ?.
C
N W
O O
in

::E CD CD CO m
a :O O O O
7 D 7 0
N
N
00
n
70
O
(n
N
(n
m
n
?_
O
z
N
O
0
0
OD CO (O (O
00 O N 41
Elevation in Feet
J J w Co
Cn 00 O N
9 F F O
O C C C S-
> K:gn

O c x p O
p
S

0 0 3•J? o
Q ((DD 3 (n
O O O

O An
o m 0
0 O

O
(D S O o 0
D s -
D N
o O :3 O
0 CD
O n
CD
Ln
O CP ?.
I+ m
CD (,4
_ (D O
N
9 r.

Linear (Across Valley) Distance in Feet
CA
o O
O o
C
N
C
C
C
C
r
rn
0
0
0
f
0
rn
C
N
C
O ?
n C
(D
7
N
C
C
C
c
T
rD
Z
M
O
N
O
O
A
O
O
D
O
Z O
O
CD
O
O
6
O
O
N
O
O

O _ W
O O O
O O

n n
a a j
-
one .?M

°z MN
r' D ?O o
ZD Z0 L4
I m n
AC Z?m
c cDi) a rrj ° <m

a> 0
C Z?
o n
DC? o? ?Z
u o
O m

z
$ m
ELEVATION IN FEET
J J Cn CD 00 Co Co
N Q1 O ? 00 N Cn
I

i

Cp m U` m
u Fn X (z x
U) 0 ?a (i
70 m? D-
D m n m n

Dn m::E
= F- D
m pD m-j
D ZZ <m
n Z D70
= m
r -a
?
Z
J 00 Cn 00 Ca 0
m O A 00 N Cn
? n
Z)
O
rn
N 1D
l
oq C
2 ?
O
<
N
o o C
n
.
n
0 ?
?•

w C n

X ?i102
- --- X SECTION
7
i
i
)
)
C
N
r77
D
Fn
D
n
N

Linear (Across Valley) Distance in Feet
N rn 00 Elevation in Feet
O O O O 0 J J J J
O O O O CO O N
?Cc)mCu a
D O O O O
G O C C C C p
m D K n
OtD°xa0 1
O to 3' (`nn
C1,C) C
O SCD N0 I P
O u 0 _, roo C7
9 70
CD -? S I O
D o o (n
S D ? N
CD O N
O O Q 00 m
? O A
C CP 4
p O O
I+ J N O
_ o
C-)
n
N
D A _
O
CY) (D
TI O
(D :D
C-
O
O D
(D
0
00
O
rn J J J J
00 O N ? O)
00
O
Elevation in Feet
O
J J J
rn J
00 O N -PI O)
m Cu c0 Ca O 00
r o000 c0
a>>>>
CD ??!?: ?: ? n
a C: C:
O
D (n
0 TI < N
O Q O N'
a lD _x N O N (n
7 o o 3 7w O o ! m
aio C
(D u°
° ?o3n O
O CD 0? U Z
O- O O °
(D J'O 07 O Cn
0 D
N O 0
0 C ? O
0 O O
O
O O (D
(-n 0
?
O p UA O --
Q
I+ J
O r.
(D D
O CI J J J J CD
CD (n 00 O N A C)
Elevation in Feet
-n m rn J J J J
CO
00 O N -PI rn
p X D
C)) CO CD CO CO
O N EC 0 0 0
Z C s
O a c c c c
p 0 r ?DKgn
Z D oCD?a? N
0 O e 3 SN o
D M ago c
;a `D 3 N
m 00
D 0 (D o 0 S (JA
(D 0 (D
p
? N I N
D o -PI
CD O D S O I n
CT). O o
(? N o Q 0
O 09
0n 70 o_(ACO ?D m (A -- - (ten (JI 00 O ° C) O (D C7 (n 1+
o (n
O (n N 00 Q O O m
n
. (n CD O
3 (D 0 ? 70 (n
o O
o n - a 2-01 c0n (D
(D .w 0 C - ? n
0 -9
?C (D (D - (D rn
ms0W 00 CD 0
a N ° CT o ':D3 3 0
a? 30?
_ 7 10 N 0 ? OD
Oo -o?CTM ?O o
o•,o - (D 0 !?.o
O? cD?n o
(n p
CD <
-O °
0 (D 0
(A (D O
(D O CT J J J J
O 00 O N 41 (T
N
O
O N ? O? 00
O O O O
p o O O
n
n
- Z D m 1 tz7
=mG 20 11
a
M U)
z C)
W c- r C=y ?IIM nZ Z0TCn o Q z z n z IV C
1-7 o U) a I oz z -ImO?F ? n rA-??
(n n T m - `s CD V-
0 NO >CD mccZ D ?z rQ-?
C r t w
Z O m

,?
I
i

I I l

? 111
II
X i?
n

IO
7_ O
Z
W ??
A
I
.
I
n
I
A
1
I

II ji
e
O
r
,A

z

ri
?
r

?J .
D

S
r

0 41
N 0
O O
O
N _ 41
O
N
A

ELEVATION IN FEET
Q) ? J J J J
0) au O N -P 0)
O
Linear (Across Volley) Distance in Feet o m
N A 0) 00 O
O O O O
O O O O
r
z
m
0
0
0
m m
n n
O
O
O
O
00
O
r 0
7O N
O W
O
O
f
O co m (n
N f 0 ? N
<
C D
N
O <
0 Z O D C7 r*t?
n N
O 0 FD > m O
O N
J
O
O
(D
(D
m
W
O
O
u
O
O
41
O N A 0) 00
O O O O O
O O O O
O J J J J
O m 00 O N 4? O)
-P. Z r. X m
-? a - l y J
= m Z D m O
0>0 0Z aq
a 0 0=Z z0 =Z ?0 o o Cn
r
c? "M O
Z?o - n
F7 O
Ln -a _ m o z F fD n
-nom 10 m r Z-1 ?? G?•?
D' r (?
cJ 0

X
? N
O
z O
crr Z ??
a
1
I
I
.
I
e
.
I
I
I
A

Z
rn ?I
?

?A y
Q
n
S
7
f

O
N
O
O
O
N

f
f
x-S? CTI O'v 5D
i
^
O
m
fT1X CX
A
N rZ D Z

G7
C7
0
*
)
r

? 2
? r D

O Z
o m D
---I
? r ?
7 ?

Cu m
m x

--I
?
? Z
O
D

I ?
FORM IMS am SIMIN MIN MIN MIN MININ 1100 MIN MIN IMIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN IMIN IMIN
Linear (Across Valley) Distance in Feet
N ? CT 00
O O O O
O O O O
O
-PI
O
O
r 00
CD l?
0
O O
O
p
O
f
O
N
O
n
0
TI
CD O

I
1I
k
r\?
b
- -'??
X-SECTION ON 6D
O
I
I
0 C
O
O -0
O
? Ul I
Z
(/1
I M
M D
?
M
D
n n
D
M
D - yl
n
?i
? I
N
O
O i!
O '
r
I?
N
N
O N A O) W
O O O O O
O O O O
::E CO Cu Co Co
O 0 0 O

? O C C_ C C_
r „D??n O
11< O a0
x
O

< _
O
O O 9cn
p
3

0
0

rrn
`
an c
0 3 WCD

.
? o
O
_
(D O
-
0 CD O
(D O
9- D
S - D
D N ' N
CD 0 O
W ? O O
p n
LP CD
Cx j
DO
TI
CD
_ O
(n ^

-P
O
1
f -q M
r- X D
O cn Z
O
Z
n r
zt G7 r
O
M Do
D
M
M
D
Z
W N J O
On -o a1nCp ?D M
moo °•OO° mn w
O cn cn O 0 0 0
x : C p to
_
3 (D -
O ?O ? cn
O n
' O O (D
O ? 1 O
^
CD 0 Ul C
^.0^D i n
D .
.
p N::r 0 in 00
?cn
a oQO'D
? 3N
o 30
N
:D O ?
0

n 0 -a a- CD

c
p
o n
o 5• m
p =?< n
?•iO _. (D 0 .LO
(D M = 0
O cD < -0
-O O
-7
_
(p O CD O
In ^
0

(D ID CO IA
O O O O
Q-

o c c c c
DQ gn O
?
xa
N
o?
00 3 ?v 2
0
a,O c
M 3 ?M N.
?
o ?n
0 o
0 0
o
-
0
Q CD
m
J? o 0

D N
CD J O O
O N N
O p n
M

-Ti
CD
N O
D
A
O
Elevation in Feet
O) ? N O

C)
0
co

?p

p) -P, N V
Elevation in Feet
41 N O

1
II
In
O cD

lD

0) ;1 N O
?wMIAW
O O 0 0
J F T 7 C F
o c c c c
?DK:::E n O
o<pxao
a°
3?w o
o
c
?0 3 ?CD N.

0 O NC) O
0
D O O
O 4
D"=r -
D Ln' N
m
0 p O
-
O
[]
V 7
N 0 n
A M
O A ?•
41

CD
_ O
^
(n
-P
O
Elevation in Feet
(J1 ? N O
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
i
I
O) D N C
n
70
O
(n
(n
N
M
n
O
Z
C
CJ
O
n
O
N
(/)
M
n
.?
O
Z
C
D
N
m
n
O
Cn
Cn
Cn
M
n
O
Z
C
W
O
a ? _ o
z m m =^ i? Z D m
p O OZ
?u (A
C 50yy N o p Cn
' Oo ?rn =z Z
n n
_ c o _
Z
Z r-
LA >
Q ;u C <
c v
Cn 0o Z-i - m00 F CD { n CD
T 2
1113
CA --a O r -1 3 4 ?•
O m Z D C Z
z O ? Z w
Iv -

U) m m m ? i r? r - i x?
O i ;D mx m;o DZ7 X
r r r m r mm mm om m
Z z z rK OK K 3
m
0 0 0 -u rvm ?m n;u M ?
K m ;l _0 ;u z z= m m
z m X m = = D cn to D
=-i N U) Z Z Z
D O O
m ;u n n m;u x
n x < D m m rD D z
-M ? D m m L/) -0 o r
Z Z
O O ? Lo
Z z o z m
z mm
Z
v
o UT o ? J -N L-i (D
N 0 0 0 c0 Q)
Ul CO
O O ?
O A n ? 7 >
n lD fD
~ U1 U)
fD
N
s ° v n
m m z w
K fn cn (n °-4r O
C) =Z om
o ?ONCn ZK< o ?p U
o DS Dn z70?S oyo ?'S f
X o o? z? oo Z?m0 4 N n
_ o r*
?N Z{ C) 0 O n
w D z r-r- ?p
o o I L- - L
z

Z cn /
w+ m
cn o
n q ..
m+ J n / Do X Do o cno - n m z 0 ?o m
o ` z-V -U zv -0 ?m 0 m ° O zi M
f?
50 ZO O ZO O X70 Z Z r mm m
a. m (n u) m (n (n m Cn <
rm m rm m Dm O O z p n ?< O
_0 D co p ? p to m Z O D
~ C C7 ;o D O C)
O T m p C C: z
O C
o - r
O D C
;a
z m
x o ? \ Lys
m m
D m oD m O n
D °?° o O
=o
?
rDO Z
1 i?po N O n I.
(A a
m ?.
z=!
0 N Cl) Z D- G)z O
L4 C? 0 3:
r -r
Iy r ? .
0
__4 M
Z7 X t 1 `.
m?
m?
r-
Zz
m0
f!
e
ti
r
rn r
2<
Zr
Zm
rrn N
mN
z m

„
' ?? )

rn
`

o cn? n? n z m m -+ K: K mn
X X ;o Z D DO
O OO ZO O Z O ? I
- :j m M x Km m
n
U) m rm m r m D Z
O Z
0 r
m no m
o ZD +
Z
O NO p cc p (n M z z ? O
C-) m
U co

n >

n

r -i

?u O

D -+

O

0 z
O
Z mp m p
z NT.
N::E Km 0 O
0 C
n >
O p
z m D
r X z m
C
0
Xm
OX
O ?
0
z
r Z
OM
0
D
zy
Z
Z
m
r
CIE

--107,M

Mo- m*
(1 J
,?
NZ
M ?ODm ,
.7 _ 40
(f)
?
r orno
?r^
x
?
Z
Z < D j

IZ r
rrn 0
r0
x

e

-
cl
F
m?
O o
O O
SN
O O
co
rn D
N
N
OD
Z-4
r ,
,
O

,
,
r*1 r -n -0
2DD< 00
Zrri 00
M0 r'IN r-rrl
rn -0 22t
0 ,,ern ZO
N
ri m
?
(1
O s Z'n
<
Ln CD
rn
*i
?v
m
a

-1

,
,
,
f'
? v
co
CDO n
Zr OZO -n Z
M
mN r r,irrn ?r
Z Sj
-' m

Q
_N
,17,
U) U) U)
m M m cn
M ;o :3 x ;0::3 ;D D? M
am m
D D nnc D nc D mD D
z
p p ? co ? co
?(' - ?`n m n? X
_0 pX -oz =m m
M X ?cm rnCS >0 N
(n m om oZ z I o
__4 LO O m m=x -2n m0Q x
x X < pro m rD D
<D ?a-4 yam _ ?
? of o f Z /_0
OZ O ,D Ozz ,o O -1 N z Oz
z 2,0
m
N U1 r ?
m
?<
r
Q_ am
N
Un N W N
O? W rn W c0
(P Un (T Lr
O O CP O
A n 3 7
? ? 7 7
N In
m m O
=O m o Z .o m n
r _
c r OG r0 =z Z0 (n ?, ° O Cn/?
X
c: c OC ZD°C ZDMO r-r T CDe
m _ RI
D 0 D:<
w °o o Z Z r-r w '?
r?
-
m --=- -_--
Z
rm
m
-
-- ox
ox z
- ? Z
-
m O
- t?
W - ?
?? -
Z
m n n m
DO Zx
mZ z51 n
m
:r :7
f ?? I
r*1
I
m n D Z m m mo
-
x m
0 z m x x ; Z D DO
C- NZ r
m
m
O Z m
O
M ? ? m ? 0 Mm m
z
0 m m
? m D Z
O Z
O r_
Z Mx
n z< O
o m O N M O
Z 0 D
O -n D
0 -n
r N O
g -?
O ? O

m
m

o
M
X
rn
O
o

c
m
c Z
c
r
r o n
r
c
r D z
m Z n

m m
° =O? m oz Mm
2o N
D
Z
C 0 0 Z 0
o m 1 ( Z? xc ZDm0 r-r
m
N C O? Z
D D{ C) 0
? o o m z Z r,-

z n O l ,
I
z O4
o < o O r/1
°
C, z
Z
o a^ ? ?.
6 O n

I
LIVE
PROPOSED BANKFULL WIDTH STAKES
FLOODPLAIN (Wbkf)
NTURAL NATURAL
FLOODPLAIN 2 COIR FIBER FLOODPLAIN
'I
EII
IC?I MATTING 2
E]
I11ETI-

?

- rfgl?n-

2 2
1
1

w

?

r]I
t
llllE
=
LL
II II n
-
S
ppF

Wbot 0.5' BED MATERIAL
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION
Wpool LIVE STAKES
TO BE PLACED
ON OUTSIDE OF
MEANDER BENDS
COIR FIBER
MATTING PROPOSED
FLOODPLAIN
IQII=11Fa1F11?'biL. 3

I i- I-I 2 0
1` =lll
1 o
1 a

ql_-I I Irl-,, I II-II-III I?I?I M
Lft,t
TYPICAL POOL CROSS-SECTION
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS

Cilenr Prole
B
y
c a er
MAF WGL FIGURE
TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTIONS
BISHOP SITE D. SEPT 2004
Eco nce s Oe

Cor
oration svstem
E
t RESTORATION PLANNING NO SCALE
O
p nhancemen t 5? , ?o

Ralugh, Nonh Carolina ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 02-113-34

REACH Wbkf
(ft.) Wbot (ft.)
Riffle Driff
(ft.) Wpool
(ft.) Wbot (ft.)
Pool Dpool
(f t.) Width/Depth
Ratio
CAMP BRANCH -REACH 1 & 2 21.5 12.3 2.3 28 12 3.2 12
CAMP BRANCH -REACH 3 22.4 12.4 2.5 29.1 12.1 3.4 12
UT TO CAMP BRANCH 10.6 5 1.4 15.9 7.9 1.6 12
DULA THOROUGHFARE 8.6 4.6 1.0 12.0 6.5 1.1 12
UT TO DULA THOROUGHFARE 7.5 4.3 0.8 10.5 6 0.9 12

I
I

P

I
I

Planted
Willow / Tag Alder
Erosion
V Control Mat
Floodplain Bankfull flow
$ - 4 foot stake length
Baseflow - 2 inch stake diameter
a
4- 16
F3 foot stake spacing
X9.5 1 ? .I?
!? ,?$^ ? ? sus • .. i
-°-t?..r•.:c,.f
} '?sNR r? •? JaY e ? r. "p Tr:- y? r'a 4 -. ? .. _ . ?". t ?,. ri=... y' - ?F a .
/- r, , .g.6 C .- r c a- ' • ¦ a
t' a +i.-.•x-?r'r 6"?. ?¦' P -?4F ? ?' r 5 1 y `y?" 4.
.. z,?e Y hr`s w ?¦ ? } ??¦Y??s ??r ??•y t ? ? ?. .? ? ? ? 1'?• ?Y ,r e,'??'¢!MF*-? ?a¦? tk- ..f .
? r.P' "T -? ? m,+ rrrt w? ? ° bs-r ??? ? ? +s:."Y.. ?r _ _ ° _ E
• ?°OI 4R? p4 ?r3Y.. '!"' i ?. .p` i'i.. ? f[w q li ` ? ? (c?' r
``L` ?? ? ? ..r -_ e ?r,T' ter- ? ; -?-_W?. ? ?-:C. 1? .? '.a "{+k '?s ? !' ",;' °=s- s.. e'- ¦?'rrjJ` t ,:.
.¦,; , s y,r fT.,,r - e... '' - ?`r.. -4tr s.. ?Y. .^' -.? c_ ¦ ja-r r¦
e _.b•+sIF L S' '.?: `1L 7':' ,, r '?N Ly. .yt 'ri^sr ¦y. r r. .? P '+ -F.". ?,, :?s iL :e "•,'? y 7L.0 ,,,p?-eF.a'.Gra-_`
a 495
r °.as ..i1} s. t 4 1 - r} r • e rs_ • i '? ,{ .°n,x?'?'? 'fa- ?."
t? ,.. ??t. ¦ _ :.. + j'r-mss. I ?,._ y..`t .... ?? se'.„?.
• -: ?:. ? '? •? ? T... 'S'
'i r,,;14a, ?h.. ? .?,? ? "" yr_-?d a? }l'°?i.? .y`.4 -. s4 t aSS ???'r-" ^•t e?"s4" ?," f.:. ? '.i
`. ,?r+.6 ? ¦ ¦ '._, it ?i 'f' y ?L' -'?'?....: `.. 7t'.+. ?_ S'? •}` .?. I ._ r.s - -R• r y i e r
01
Jett
°NsR'' . .. •=` wr ' s'?¦Y` G ?aT_ ..g, r * 's + ¦ r u L -t
a
[., -? ,?-:sets" "4'yq-s- '?-:i,...er •P•?F P'.' .e.''$''a!- o'R. ""'?,`"r° ? ¦```',-.. 41 ? ^Ar r. -r s ?'ti•''4 ¦`", ?-+rsa.'vt F,?k p. ,

Willow Stake Embankment
Li U>rn cv
"JS
rigs-e
L-coScience ve
with Erosion Control Matting WGL
Corporation Bishop Site Restoration Planning °°'e SEPT2004 11
? Raleigh, North Carolina Anson County, North Carolina `-jeC- 02-113 34

D
con
Cn D 2
O Z>
W T. Z
J
B m
---- - r
-------- --- - --- ------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------
IV
Z © 0o
O
-? W
m _ o
S
m W
D
O
m
D
Z O
D
O m
O O
2 -u of
m r- m
D m B
Z
Cf) V)
<
g Oz E MMJ
m
D mm
A WF
r Z7 m
D n z)
O
m
D
Z
O
C
r
w O
CO o
O
c O
0 0
m ----------- -- ------ --- ----- - -- - - -------------------- --------------?
V)
S CO n
m D S
U D zD
O 71 z
m D z
m
r
4
O
z
rT
Cam, sn ?D
xr7 ?T 70 N
n;U (m >N
O? D
z?
m ?'$ I cn
rte' '?
z
J
O O 00
;u ? c 00 i
C-) O
8 0°°
o? I m
000 n 0
C C -0 m
Ti
OC `-m> A
g ( Z V)
Jo oa O 2 m? ?
gg m
cn ?? r n O
n O?
Z D
O Ec' Z
07c D
uC g °0o >
C Oo
0?0 Z
00o mm ? I
t C)
O
c? D
l; I X c? m
2 x
C o r Z
G m zZ
r G7
o ?
S O
W °?O O
?
o o -1 O L/)
00? o m 0
m Cn
m T 900 m
Z r o
o.o
mr
m
0*
ocr QQc o
cn o U o°°0° 0?
o ?C1a°?IF) Cv
z
rv, Q
n F = o ?.
F
c o Z m ?. n
O y ?
my a ?o
z C) ? Z0L o o O
m z- m < D O c ? -4
m O iL C7
(? Z z? G)O ° O n
o Z w C?
D
C. r O
? m A li
li :1
n
c D
? n
? O C ?
?
o c
r
o
D
?
m
D
C O ;:o
r ?

D
=
n D
z n
=

O ?
O C
z) C7 CO m
_

O
2
z7 ?
C m D m n
C
7 D ? S
_ ?7 ?
- m S S

m N
D

r
m
w v co ? po ?

o O O O p ?
2

Z

Z
m
r
o O -- v N ?

Du V
A
s W
m

2

0
? O

0
00 Z -Ti
00 v7 m 70

Z
0
m
S
m
D
c
m
z
D
Z
c
0
c
z
0
z
m
Cf)
D
z
m
D
z
D
Z
O
D
CO
O
c
O
m
(n
n
c D
? n
D
Q c
O c -
r
C7 D - Co z

c
O D

r Z

S D n
D n z
0 D -

S 0 T D
o c n

z
G?
m =
O
m D m n
O D Z S
X
? = S
Sto
?
m N
D
z

r
m
PO V CO z
C-)
O O O O p
2

n

D
Z
z
m
O O N N p
co J A S (? m

2
m

s
Z

Co n D
ZD
z Z
Z
m
)r
---------------------------------------------------
N
O
o
W
O
o
on
co

------
--------------------
---------------
------------
N m
?O
00
Z m
mm
? O
mm Coca
W -'-" D> r Z>
------ a z m T, z
- -
9 m
r
(n S
?m
(n O>
Z>
MM
z D
n X J?
l7 O
N
OO 00 O CP
m
m
Z nog
m r ??YJ
m ?p
O r C VO
m OO
C> o c
O
Doo Ul -n
N
UGC OO I
O
Z?
Z mm
o 0?p0
00 co D
?P
61-
Z
Or(
1O60c?t ?. S
CAS to
0 m
O' ZZ 0
M m O
On 9Z
go
0.
Z0 :?
c
mo
o? ? I
m
?o O C7
Sz
OC r Nm t I (1)S nm
-O -+m Sx
00 OD D?;j
? O o l mm MM mZ
? o o ? Z7 r C7
O oop^oO 0 ?i
i _ -------- _
r '
O
i
m m mn
Dr .
?0 r
LU U ? CA
n ;o (n D V)
_4 m -
Or D
z r
m
,
W 6 Z O
p Z m n
L A 0 cn W 0
z C)
L, 1 C)
m o- m 7oOD oZmp ran, Ar?? I?.?
G O D- Y, z O
D °
/A m 0
-. _

xcn C7m U7r can
o(-) 000 ?> z
r0 Z?7p 00 Zz
M C m m Z
A m m D
F- > r
0 m N
r
- r
8
z
f -?O coca
ZD
T. Z
z
frTl
?r mm r
O
Z 00 M?
o mm n? < D
9 D
T0mm z
?zF= m
O ?
C m
p ?Q
?CP
o z D
m Cl)
p
>>z
?n z?z
0
DLO moo
o m?
°O o > z
op z >?o
D ?iu
mZ o c 0 pD -+
rD r W Dm0 C/)D
C) 0 Z m0Z o 0?
0
- Z
Z D D Om - m m
S
m- Z O D z
m ;z -
p m -
?r -
?m
?m
11 L I',
m II
n70
m m ,?
D n
r
> I I _
p2
m
nm F ?Z-?' z?z =
i O oo -
r ??? IIII??
' m -
?D0 -III
S D n
III_;
coo O III
N
S' D 0 L? -11 (n r r
D --4 I 111 M m
m o <
-, D
m z z
m
-"' D
co
III
VIII
`? III = -T'
r
r
O
0
< C7QJ nmK:
S o 000
D D- z?a0
Z m z0 - mom
rK: III-1 °D°
o °
M
m N
r
- r
?D
O?
Z m
s a E M
© m z ? 2 ? ? ? ? Ln1J
r o Z M m.
O A Cf) Cl)
O
D -' o 00 A '?
S O
-, - 0 G7
1 z
.1 r C M n z O
.P cc cn _° m C C? D o Z_ ° O
m c o" M ?>> oz Z?mQ?
On
? N mr D-< Q0
D o Z C?
A m A i
VARIES
tXIJ I If\
GRADE
FILTER
NOTES:
1. LAY FILTER FABRIC ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF BED.
2. FILL WITH 8" OF 'CLASS A' RIPRAP, FOLLOWED BY 4' OF u4 STONE.
BRING FINISHED GRADE UP TO LEVEL OF PROPOSED STREAM BED.
4' un STONE
S A
RIPRAP
Cfen4 P.ojcct: D- er_
MAF c" sy-
WGL
FIGURE

? PERMANENT FORD DETAIL
Bi
h
Sit
ti
R
t
Pl
i D,
SEPT 2004
Eco nce
C
i ?
E yam
t op
s
e
es
ora
on
ann
ng , o
No SALE 1
orporat
on
l 1 len
? (
-
Anson County, North Carolina
I gc p,o - N. 5
Raleigh, North Carolina 04 -182

-f- _
M
D I' r
?? ?? J i Clt 2 co N VJ A '? (n
ADO yr SCI - Z
N0 p fT17
_q CD C) nK
r* a oo ? o a S (n O
O N AD 8 3 ?y lF?? ?? Al o O o (,n CDn O m c
fL_ / N ? -a M (A Z
m O (n
-1 -q M -i
n co (n
=r
D D
.???Z ?
m
w
0
v
z ? m ?;-.;., n
z C) 11
Q? OLD ° O
C Z n n z_
> 0
A
0 No
CF m
Z^ om O Z m (?
m Z
F? ^?•
Y! D YJ O '? n n
w w
N
00 O = Z `------- i--?
0
41 - - - - --
m m m ! m r = = m = = = m

?m
;o x
m?
m
r?
Z Z
m')

m C7
NO
mZ
?m
m?
Z<
?D
O
Z
J
C/E
IN
N O
C7 ?

1'l
Z

m
fTl ?J
NAO 67 i:_? --
?

O
0

i
i
i
i
J i

Z
z D
? O
?

?

z

c? D r

m O v -0 D 2
O r
w
Z
-
D f/?

o
?„
A
-? O

z Cn ,

m _

(1) C)

O z m / o
F
Z
-n -1 Z
- F
? a? w rt ' h-r
.
_

W

N Q
a M

D - O ^
O O Z w ??" CC
0 0

v
?DCOm (P=m N) U) ?^ n D
(/)DZ) ADO
Nm71(/) J0 ° DD
° cy>? o 0O ° o nK: C7
r
o D m D ° ° O °_ 0 O
n C-)Mr O ?Z ° m q v)°m
CD (A V)
F (n ? N -i m (Dl) Z
O D m O (/)
C;) mm
_ _ O CO fn
? =r
Z C-)
Z m
m
=1 = m = = m = m = = = = m

i /-

n
m
Z
m
? O
'0
o
r=
r_ f
cn Ln I CO !v (A 5
?Cn i JDO "J r Z
N
?eou 1 O
O mm O
S >> O ?O --m n
-=cn O< O
9
O O 000 D 00
Nm O Z O U
O n m , n
(' m C
mD mp N
V7 U) ;a N Z
O (n m
mm
K m
nCC) N
=r
Z 0
Zm

?m
Ox
D U1
O ?
Z
0

m
m m m i K: mO
x x x Z D N0 m
rn
m
m Km m
Z
C) Z
c) Z
C) r
Z
o m?:7
n Z< Z

m
0 --A
D v
_0 cn x z
O
::E -+
;u O
D -1
O

O
m m O
C Z
C
K 17

O
F-
m
?m
.(7 x
rnN
m?
r-
ZZ
m0
Cif
t
r
F
4
e.

i
W
U

a = z0 D m
O
J n
D V
T j z G7 m ??0 ?? =Z SOy? m o V.
CA 2 > C) U) C) oN ?T Z oz z? ?? V?•r?
o O > D ` Z 1O? C D
O N ?
A A m

iMI'r m M M = m = m = = = = = r r MM
CD 3
-n CD Cn -n
CD cn
Ile
(n * CD CD cn
a) Ey C: CD w
CL :3 > 0 CL
C/) CO M CD
0 a) CD c-) -n
CD (D 0- 0- cn (n a) 0
Cr CD
CD C: ;1 00
0 n a) CD (C
CD :3 (n r,
0 -n
00 o
(D cn
T C7 O
n
(a ? o m
0 m T ^
0 O O z D -0 rn
0-n Z ON rcncn s `? o
> ?
T ?Dom ?Z3 ZOO 0 0
m
o o v?v? v o
X ZM
?I ZG) m? o n? -?
W u N `< +\ I O ? "? o Qrj
A =r r
O p rl) r m
C)
A

?r mD m?
O ?z 99
?z 0 z
?v ? D
z m?

D ?o

cn o
O O C:
CD c O r
?
o 0
c
ny o?-mo? ?rn

a
r
?
o Qm ?- ? ?j ? ? v <°-? N mrn
oD?' ?v °o oC° cn ???? 9 D

,?. cn cD O p
a CL N m

r
O z ? N
? W

o vv
p v
? rn

w
if z
Y
Q'll
i ?oc
! ? ? it .._„•,
y ? »tis µT(0. 0.0b
-------------
cn o
n
m
z
NAD 83 m
m
m
C? ,G O
a co
o`o
io
O
v

r

d
_a(I/i AJ?
S )S

41
', 11 pe,
µ < .
?sf 3 mn
d
ii
Z
f?
m
y r ti ?? 1 Z C
IF f V
;? 1 t
l
V ? t l
i
-? I I 1
o<N n? c? m z z
m Om NK c r _?
x D K NZ p Z Z ; S
- cn m p n
D
3 ?C) m?
Z D > C/) z
z " OZ = n r m X m z
m rZ
to ? O m o r
Z r
rim ?O D = O
r Z Z c D n
G7 c G7 Z
Z D
G? m m m -_i
m r- O
Z
wO n m z
N - = O N
0o N m
m s o o ^
(1M
Z
a o > m O n
on Z,
0 X (n U)
c yn Z??2 z o
O O Z o z x `? ?•
m - N Z O? C? w? z o ray
w Co O G7 D' Z r''?-r o o O
O ?D
0
A A
W

M ??

F',

J
1

?I

fl

J

APPENDIX B
TABLES
1
M r = = i = M M
TABLE 2A
BISHOP STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Morphological Characteristics of Existing Channels
Variables Camp Branch Exisiting Channel UT Camp Branch
Reach 1: Upstream of
Headcut
(E) Reach 2: Headcut to Ford

(E) Reach 3: Downstream of
Ford
(G) Downstream of Pond

(E/C)
1 Stream Type E E G E/G
12 Drainage Area (mil) 2.4 2.4 2.7 0.3
3 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 168 168 182 37.3
Dimension Variables (Feet)
4 Bankfull Cross Sectional

Area (Abkf) 38.7 38.7 42 9.4
5 Bankfull Width (Wbkf) Mean: 19.1 Mean: 18.3 Mean: 17.8 Mean: 11
Range: 16.5-21.3 Range: NA Range: 16-19.5 Range: 6 - 15.7
6 Bankfull Mean Mean: 2.0 Mean: 2.1 Mean: 2.4 Mean: 1.1
Depth (Dbkf) Range: 1.8-2.2 Range: NA Range: 2.2-2.6 Range: 0.6-1.6
:,Bankfull MaximurrY Mean: 2.6 Mean: 2.7 Mean: 2.8 Mean: 2.1
Depth (Dmax Range: 2.4-2.7 Range: NA Range: 2.5-3.0 Range: 1.4-2.7
8 Pool Width (Wpoo,) Mean: 23.6 Mean: 12.9 Mean: 16.4 Mean: NA
Range: NA Range: NA Range: 13.4-19.4 Range: NA
9 Maximum Pool Mean: 4.3 Mean: 3.2 Mean: 3.7 Mean: NA
Depth (D pool) Range: NA Range: NA Range: 3.3-4.1 Range: NA
10 Width of Floodprone Mean: 110 Mean: 100 Mean: 20.8 Mean: NA
Area (Wfpa) Range: 75-180 Range: NA Range: 17.2-24.3 Range: NA
Dimension Ratios
11 Entrenchment Ratio Mean: 6.6 Mean: 5.5 Mean: 1.1 Mean: 11.5
(Wf aMbkf) Range: 3.8-8.5 Range: NA Range: 1.1-1.2 Range: 6.4-16.6
12 Width/Depth Ratio Mean: 9.9 Mean: 8.7 Mean: 7.6 Mean: 15
Wbkf/Dbkf) Range: 7.5-11.8 Range: NA Range: 6.2-8.9 Range: 3.75-26.17
13 Max. Dnff/Dbkt Ratio Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.1 Mean: NA
Range: 1.2-1.5 Range: NA Range: 1.1-1.2 Range: NA
14 Low Bank Height/ Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.5 Mean: 2.3 Mean: 1.04
Max. Dbkf Ratio Range: 1.0-1.3 Range: NA Range: 2.2-2.4 Range: 1 - 1.07

15 Pool Depth/Bankfull
Mean:
2.2
Mean: 1.2
Mean:
1.6
Mean: _
NA
Mean Depth (D Qol/Dbkf) Range: NA Range: NA Range: 1.4-1.7 Range: NA
16 Pool width/Bankfull Mean: 1.2 Mean: 0.7 Mean: 1.0 Mean: NA
Width (W ool/Wbkf) Range: NA Range: NA Range: 0.8-1.1 Range: NA
Pool Area/Bankfull
L17 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 0.8 Mean: 1.2 Mean: NA
Cross Sectional Area Range: NA Range: NA Range: 0.9-1.4 Range: NA
Pattern Variables (Feet)
18 Pool to Pool Spacing Mean: 74 Mean: 74
(L .) Range: 45-145 Range: 45-145 No distinctive repetitive
tt
f
iffl
d
l
pa
ern o
r
es an
poo
s
19 Meander Length (Lm) Mean: 133 Mean: 133 due to straightening activities No distinctive repetitive
Range: 66-240 Range: 66-240 pattern of riffles and pools
20 Belt Width (Wbelt) Mean: 43 Mean: 43 Mean: 37 due to straightening
Range: 30-97 Range: 30-97 Range: 19-79 activities
21 Radius of Curvature (Ro) Mean: 41 Mean: 41 No distinctive repetitive
Range: 17-200 Range: 17-200 pattern of riffles and pools
22 Sinuosity (Sin)
1.18 1.18 1.05 1.04
Pattern Ratios
23 Pool to Pool Spacing/ Mean: 3.8 Mean: 4.0
Bankfull Width (L _ bkf) Range: 2.3-7.4 Range: 2.5-7.9 No distinctive repetitive
24 Meander Length/ Mean: 6.8 3
Mean: 7 pattern of riffles and pools
. due to straightening activities No distinctive repetitive
Bankfull Width (Lm/Wbkf) Range: 3.4-12.2 Range: 3.6-13.1 pattern of riffles and pools
25 Meander Width Ratio Mean: 2.2 Mean: 2.3 Mean: 2.1 due to straightening
(Wbelt/Wbk0 Range: 1.5-4.9 Range: 1.6-5.3. Range: 1.1-4.4 activities.
26 Radius of Curvature/ Mean: 2.1 Mean: 2.2 No distinctive repetitive
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf) Range: 0.9-10.2 Range: 0.9-10.9 pattern of riffles and pools
Profile Variables (Feet/Feet)"
27 Average Water Surface

Slope (Save) 0.0029 0.0029 0.0041 0.0212
28 Valley Slope (S„alley)
0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0220
29 Riffle Slope (S6ff,e) Mean: 0.0070 Mean: 0.0093 Mean: 0.0127 Mean: 0.0434
Range: 0.0008 - 0.0167 Range: 0.0042 - 0.0144 Range: 0.0011 - 0.0614 Range: 0.0133-0.1062
30 Pool Slope (Spool) Mean: 0.0004 Mean: 0.0003 Mean: 0.0005 Mean: 0.0039
Range: 0.0000-0.0013 Range: 0.0000 - 0.0007 Range: 0.0000 - 0.0020 Range: 0 - 0.0360
Profile Ratios
31 Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 2.4 Mean: 3.2 Mean: 3.1 Mean: 2.0
Slope (Srifne/Save) Range: 0.28 - 5.8 Range: 1.45 - 4.96 Range: 0.27 - 15.0 Range: 0.6 - 4.8
32 Pool Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.06 Mean: 0.10 Mean: 0.12 Mean: 0.18
Slope (Spool/Save) Range: 0 - 0.18 Range: 0 - 0.24 Range: 0 - 0.49 Range: 0 - 1.6
Materials (Millimeters)
D16 0.6 N/A N/A N/A
D35 4.7 2.9 7.6 N/A
D50 7.2 5 13.8 N/A
F D84 17 10 39 N/A
D95 30 19 60 N/A

TABLE 26
BISHOP STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Morphological Characteristics of Existing Channels
Variables Dulla Exisiting Channel UT to Dulls Exisiting Channel
Upstream Stream Reach
(E) Downstream Reach
(C) Upstream Stream Reach
(G) Downstream Stream Reach
(E)
1 Stream Type E C G E

2 Drainage Area (mi)
0.12
0.14-0.25
0.11 _
0.12-0.13
3 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 19.3 21.5-32.7 18.1 19.3-20.4
Dimension Variables (Feet)
4 Bankfull Cross Sectional

Area 5.1 5.7-8.4 4.8 4.4-5.1
5 Bankfull Width (Wbkf) Mean: 6.0 Mean: 14 Mean: 3.7 Mean: 5.3
Range: 5.5-6.4 Range: 12.3-15.9 Range: NA Range: 4.4-6.2

6 Bankfull Mean
Mean: 0.9
Mean: 0.5
Mean: 1.3 _
Mean: 1.0 _ -?
Depth (Dbkf) Range: 0.8-0.9 Range: 0.4-0.6 Range: NA Range: 0.7-1.2
7 Bankfull Maximum Mean: 1.6 Mean: 0.8 Mean: 1.8 ! Mean: 1.6`V
Depth (Dm= Range: 1.5-1.6 Range: 0.8-0.9 Range: NA Range: 1.2-1.9

8 Pool Width (Wpool)
Mean: 4.1
No distinctive repetitive
Mean: NA _
Mean: NA _
Range: NA pattern of riffles and pools Range: NA Range:
NA
9 Maximum Pool Mean: 1.7 due to straightening Mean: NA _
Mean: NA
Depth (D pool) Range: NA activities
Range: NA
Range: NA
10 Width of Floodprone Mean: 44 Mean: 78 Mean: 5.8 Mean: 40
Area (Wfpa) Range: 38-50 Range: 35 - 150 Range: NA Range: NA
Dimension Ratios
11 Entrenchment Ratio Mean: 7.4 Mean: 5.9 Mean: 1.6 Mean: 7.8
(Wf ./Wbkf) Range: 6.9-7.8 Range: 2.5-12.1 Range: NA Range: 6.5-9.1
12 Width/Depth Ratio Mean: 7.1 Mean: 30.1 Mean: 2.8 Mean: 6.3 _
Wbkf/Dbkf) Range: 6.1-8.0 Range: 23.3-40.0 Range: NA Range: 3.6-8.9
13 Max. Dnff/Dbkf Ratio Mean: 1.9 Mean: 1.7 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.7
Range: 1.8-1.9 Range: 1.3-2.0 Range: NA Range: 1.6-1.7
14 Low Bank Height/ Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.9 Mean: 1.9
Max. Dbkf Ratio Range: 1.0-1.1 Range: 1.0-2.0 Range: NA Range: 1.5-2.3

15 Pool Depth/Bankfull
Mean:
1.1
Mean:
NA
Mean: _
NA
Mean Depth (D ool/Dbkf) Range: NA No distinctive repetitive Range: NA Range: NA
16 Pool width/Bankfull Mean: 0.7 pattern of riffles and pools Mean: NA Mean: NA
Width (W ool/Wbkf) Range: NA due to straightening Range: NA Range: NA

17 Pool Area/Bankfull
Mean:
0.8
activities
Mean:
NA -'
Mean: -'- ---°--------
NA
Cross Sectional Area Range: NA Range: NA Range: NA
own Pattern Variables (Feet)
18 Pool to Pool Spacing Mean: 41

L No distinctive repetitive pattern No distinctive repetitive
(
') of riffles and
ools due to tt
f
iffl
d
l Range: 23-63
p pa
ern o
r
es an
poo
s
19 Meander Length (Lm) straightening activities No distinctive
repetitive due to straightening activities Mean: 70
attern of riffl
and
l Range: 40-106

20 Belt Width (Wbell)
Mean: 8 p
es
poo
s
due to straighting activities
Mean: 21 -?_-
Mean: 21
Range: 6-20 Range: 18-22 Range: 10-41
21 Radius of Curvature (Ro) No distinctive repetitive pattern No distinctive repetitive Mean: 35
of riffles and pools pattern of riffles and pools Range: 13-70

22 Sinuosity (Sin)
1.05
1.01
1.09 _
1.17
Pattern Ratios
23 Pool to Pool Spacing/ Mean: 7.7
Bankfull Width
(L bkf) No distinctive repetitive pattern

iffl
f
d
l
d No distinctive repetitive
Range: 4.3-11.9
o
r
es an
poo
s
ue to pattern of riffles and pools ---
24 Meander Length/ straightening activities No distinctive repetitive due to straightening activities Mean: 13.1
Bankfull Width (L,/Wbkf) pattern of riffles and pools Range: 7.5-20

25 Meander Width Ratio
Mean: 1.3
due to straightening
Mean: 5.7 _
Mean: 3.9
(Wbell/Wbkf) Range: 1.0-3.3 activities Range: 4.9-5.9 Range: 1.9-7.7
26 Radius of Curvature/ No distinctive repetitive pattern No distinctive repetitive Mean: 6.6
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf) of riffles and pools pattern of riffles and pools Range: 2.5-13.2
Profile Variables (Feet/Feet)
27 Average Water Surface

Slope (Save) 0.0228 0.0019 Not Measured Not Measured
28 Valley Slope (Svalley)
0.0239 0.0019 Not Measured Not Measured
29 Riffle Slope (Srif le) Mean: 0.0360 Mean: N/A Mean: N/A

Range: 0.0036 - 0.0960 No distinctive repetitive

tt
f
iffl
Range: N/A
Range: N/A
pa
ern o
r
es and pools -_.--
30 Pool Slope (Spool) Mean: 0.0031 due to straighting activities Mean: N/A Mean: N/A
Range: 0.0000 - 0.0161 Range: N/A Range: N/A
Profile Ratios
31 Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 1.6 Mean: N/A Mean: N/A

Slope (Srifn?Save)
Range: 0.16 - 4.2 No distinctive repetitive
Range: N/A
Range: N/A

32 Pool Slope/Water Surface
Mean: 0.13 pattern of riffles and pools
due to straighting activities
Mean: N/A -? _
Mean: N/A
Slope (Spool?Save) Range: 0 - 0.71 Range: N/A Range: N/A
M aterials (Millimeters)
D16 N/A N/A Not Measured Not Measured
D35 N/A N/A Not Measured Not Measured

D50
N/A
N/A
Not Measured _ _
Not Measured

D84
9
N/A
Not Measured _
Not Measured
D95 15 N/A Not Measured Not Measured
M = = = = = = = = = = = r
TABLE 3
BISHOP STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Morphological Characteristics of Reference Channels
Variables Reference
UT to Crane Creek
(E4/5) Camp Branch
(E4) UT to Reedy Creek
(E5/4)
1 Stream Type E E E
2 Drainage Area (mil) 1.5 2.4 0.4
3 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 119 168 44
Dimension Variables (Feet)
4 Bankfull Cross Sectional

Area (Abkf) 20.5 38.7 15.5
5 Bankfull Width (Wbkf) Mean: 10.1 Mean: 19.6 Mean: 10.4
Range: 9.5-11.9 Range: 16.5-21.3 Range: 9.6-11.2
6 Bankfull Mean Mean: 2.0 Mean: 2.0 Mean: 1.4
Depth (Dbkf) Range: 1.9-2.1 Range: 1.8-2.2 Range: 1.2-1.6
7 Bankfull Maximum Mean: 2.6 Mean: 2.6 Mean: 2.2
Depth (Dmex Range: 2.5-2.9 Range: 2.4-2.7 Range: 1.8-2.2
8 Pool Width (Wpool) Mean: 11.1 Mean: 23.6 Mean: 14.2
Range: 10.5-11.7 Range: NA Range: 13.7-14.7
9 Maximum Pool Mean: 2.9 Mean: 4.3 Mean: 2.3
Depth (D ool) Range: 2.8-3.0 Range: NA Range: 2.2-2.3
10 Width of Floodprone Mean: 237 Mean: 110 Mean: 58
Area (Wipe) Range: 232 - 345 Range: 75-180 Range: 42 - 71
Dimension Ratios
11 Entrenchment Ratio Mean: 25.0 Mean: 6.6 Mean: 5.6
(Wt ,/•A•bkf) Range: 20 - 34.5 Range: 3.8-8.5 Range: 3.7-7.4
12 Width/Depth Ratio Mean: 5.1 Mean: 9.9 Mean: 7.8
Wbkf/Dbkf) Range: 4.5-5.7 Range: 7.5-11.8 Range: 6.4-8.1
13 Max. Dnff/Dbkf Ratio Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.5
Range: 1.2-1.4 Range: 1.2-1.5 Range: 1.4-1.6
14 Low Bank Height/ Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.0
Max. Dbkf Ratio Range: 1.1-1.2 Range: 1.0-1.3 Range: 1.0-1.2
15 Pool Depth/Bankfull Mean: 1.5 Mean: 2.2 Mean: 1.6
Mean Depth (D ool/Dbkf) Range: 1.4-1.5 Range: NA Range: NA
16 Pool width/Bankfull Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.4
Width (W ool/Wbkf) Range: 1.0-1.2 Range: NA Range: 1.3-1.4
17 Pool Area/Bankfull Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.2
Cross Sectional Area Range: NA Range: NA Range: 1.1-1.2
Pattern Var iables (Feet)
18 Pool to Pool Spacing Mean: 53 Mean: 74 Mean: 84
(L -) Range: 26 - 114 Range: 45-145 Range: 13-112
19 Meander Length (Lm) Mean: 73 Mean: 133 Mean: 102
Range: 61-115 Range: 66-240 Range: 81 -137
20 Belt Width (Wbelt) Mean: 86 Mean: 43 Mean: 76
Range: 74 - 101 Range: 30-97 Range: 68 - 84
21 Radius of Curvature (Ro) Mean: 25.3 Mean: 41 Mean: 27.6
Range: 18.6-30.4 Range: 17-200 Range: 17.1 - 42
22 Sinuosity (Sin)
1.8 1.18 1.55
Pattern Ratios
23 Pool to Pool Spacing/ Mean: 5.2 Mean: 3.8 Mean: 8.1
Bankfull Width (L bkf) Range: 2.6-11.3 Range: 2.3-7.4 Range: 1.3-10.8
24 Meander Length/ Mean: 7.2 - Mean: 6.8 Mean: 9.8
Bankfull Width (Lm/Wbkf) Range: 6.0-11.4 Range: 3.4-12.2 Range: 7.8-13.2
25 Meander Width Ratio Mean: 8.5 Mean: 2.2 Mean: 7.3
(WbQ/Wbkf) Range: 7.4-10.0 Range: 1.5-4.9 Range: 6.5-8.1
26 Radius of Curvature/ Mean: 2.5 Mean: 2.1 Mean: 2.7
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf) Range: 1.8-3.0 Range: 0.9-10.2 Range: 1.6-4.0
Profile Variab les (Feet/Feet)
27 Average Water Surface

Slope (S„.) 0.0014 0.0029 0.0111
28 Valley Slope (S1e„eY)
0.0025 0.0047 0.0172
29 Riffle Slope (Shfffe) Mean: 0.0019 Mean: 0.0070 Mean: 0.014
Range: 0.0006 - 0.0033 Range: 0.0008 - 0.0167 Range: 0.0105-0.0221
30 Pool Slope (Spool) Mean: 0.0004 Mean: 0.0004 Mean: 0.0069
, Range: 0.0000 - 0.0006 Range: 0.0000-0.0013 Range: 0.0016-0.0182
Profile Ratios
31 Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 1.4 Mean: 2.4 Mean: 1.3
Slope (Snff1e/Sa„8) Range: 0.4 - 2.4 Range: 0.28-5.8 Range: 0.9 - 2.0
32 Pool Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.3 Mean: 0.06 Mean: 0.6
Slope (SpooVSeve) Range: 0 - 0.4 Range: 0 - 0.18 Range: 0.1 - 1.6
Materials ( Millimeters)
D16 N/A 0.6 0.092
D35 0.44 4.7 0.29
D50 1.9 7.2 0.5
D84 12 17 12
D95 36 30 85
rr r rr rr rr r rr rr rr r rr rr ?r r? rr ?r rr rr r?
TABLE15A
BISHOP STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Morphological Characteristics of Reference and Proposed Channels
Variables Reference Proposed
UT to Crane Creek

(E4/5) Camp Branch

(E) Camp Branch (Reach 1
and 2)
(C/E) Camp Branch (Reach 3)

(C/E) UT Camp Branch

(C/E)
1 Stream Type E E C/E C/E C/E
2 Drainage Area (mil) 1.5 2.4 2.4 2.7 0.3
113 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 119 168 168 182 37.3
Dimension Variables (Feet)
4 Bankfull Cross Sectional

Area (Abkf) 20.5 38.7 38.7 42 9.4
5 Bankfull Width (Wbkf) Mean: 10.1 Mean: 19.6 Mean: 21.5 Mean: 22.4 Mean: 10.6
Range: 9.5-11.9 Range: 16.5-21.3 Range: 17.6-24.9 Range: 18.3-25.9 Range: 8.7-12.3
6 Bankfull Mean Mean: 2.0 Mean: 2.0 Mean: 1.8 Mean: 1.9 Mean: 0.9
Depth (Dbkf) Range: 1.9-2.1 Range: 1.8-2.2 Range: 1.6-2.2 Range: 1.6-2.3 Range: 0.8-1.1
7 Bankfull Maximum Mean: 2.6 Mean: 2.6 Mean: 2.3 Mean: 2.5 Mean: 1.4
Depth (Dmax Range: 2.5-2.9 Range: 2.4-2.7 Range: 2.2-2.7 Range: 2.3-2.9 Range: 1.3-1.7
8 Pool Width (Wpool) Mean: 11.1 Mean: 23.6 Mean: 28 Mean: 29.1 Mean: 15.9
Range: 10.5-11.7 Range: NA Range: 23.7-32.3 Range: 24.6-33.6 Range: 13.8-17.0
9 Maximum Pool Mean: 2.9 Mean: 4.3 Mean: 3.2 Mean: 3.4 Mean: 1.6
Depth (D ol) Range: 2.8-3.0 Range: NA Range: 2.5-4.0 Range: 2.7-4.2 Range: 1.3-2.0
10 Width of Floodprone Mean: 237 Mean: 110 Mean: 110 Mean: 184 Mean: 90
Area (Wfpa) Range: 232 - 345 Range: 75-180 Range: 75 - 180 Range: 165 - 217 Range: 30 - 110
Dimension Ra tios
11
Entrenchment Ratio Mean: 25.0 Mean: 6.6 Mean: 5.1 Mean: 8.2 Mean: 8.3
/
(Wf ./Wbkf) Range: 20 - 34.5 Range: 3.8-8.5 Range: 4.4-6.3 Range: 7.4-9.7 Range: 7.3-10.3
12 Width/Depth Ratio Mean: 5.1 Mean: 9.9 Mean: 12 Mean: 12 Mean: 12
Wbkf/Dbkf) Range: 4.5-5.7 Range: 7.5-11.8 Range: 8-16 Range: 8-16 Range: 8-16
13 Max. Dnff/Dbkf Ratio Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.5
Range: 1.2-1.4 Range: 1.2-1.5 Range: 1.2-1.5 Range: 1.2-1.5 Range: 1.4-1.7
14 Low Bank Height/ Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.2 _
Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.1
Max. Dbkf Ratio Range: 1.1-1.2 Range: 1.0-1.3 Range: 1.0-1.3 Range: 1.0-1.3 Range: 1.0-1.3
15 Pool Depth/Bankfull Mean: 1.5 Mean: 2.2 Mean: 1.8 Mean: 1.8 Mean: 1.8
Mean Depth (D ool/Dbkf) Range: 1.4-1.5 Range: NA Range: 1.4-2.2 Range: 1.4-2.2 Range: 1.4-2.2
16 Pool width/Bankfull Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.5
Width (W ool/Wbkf) Range: 1.0-1.2 Range: NA Range: 1.1-1.5 Range: 1.1-1.5 Range: 1.3 - 1.6
17 Pool Area/Bankfull Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.5
Cross Sectional Area Range: ----- Range: NA Range: 1.1-1.6 Range: 1.1-1.6 Range: 1.1-1.6
Pattern Variables (Feet)
18 Pool to Pool Spacing Mean: 53 Mean: 74 Mean: 95.8 Mean: 100 Mean: 42.4
(L ) Range: 26 - 114 Range: 45-145 Range: 63.9 - 213 Range: 67.2 - 224 Range: 15.9 - 95.4
19 Meander Length (Lm) Mean: 73 Mean: 133 Mean: 150 Mean: 157 Mean: 63.6
Range: 61-115 Range: 66-240 Range: 128 - 256 Range: 134 - 269 Range: 25.4 - 116.6

20 Belt Width (Wbelt)
Mean:
86
Mean:
43
Mean:
85.2
Mean:
89.6 _
Mean: 42.4 _
Range: 74 - 101 Range: 30-97 Range: 42.6 - 213 Range: 44.8 - 224 Range: 21.2 - 74.2
21 Radius of Curvature (Ro) Mean: 25.3 Mean: 41 Mean: 46.9 Mean: 49.3 Mean: 23.3
Range: 18.6-30.4 Range: 17-200 Range: 42.6 - 213 Range: 44.8 - 224 Range: 21.2 - 42.4
22 Sinuosity (Sin)
1.8 1.18 1.29 1.12 1.19
Pattern Ratios
23 Pool to Pool Spacing/ Mean: 5.2 Mean: 3.8 Mean: 4.5 Mean: 4.5 Mean: 4.0
Bankfull Width (L _ bkf) Range: 2.6-11.3 Range: 2.3-7.4 Range: 3-10 Range: 3-10 Range: 1.5 - 9

24 Meander Length/
Mean:
7.2
Mean:
6.8
Mean:
7
Mean:
7
Mean: _
6
Bankfull Width (LWWbkf) Range: 6.0-11.4 Range: 3.4-12.2 Range: . 6-12 Range: 6-12 Range: 2.4 - 11
25 Meander Width Ratio Mean: 8.5 Mean: 2.2 Mean: 4 Mean: 4 Mean: 4
(Wbelt/Wbkf) Range: 7.4-10.0 Range: 1.5-4.9 Range: 2-10 Range: 2-10 Range: 2-7
26 Radius of Curvature/ Mean: 2.5 Mean: 2.1 Mean: 2.2 Mean: 2.2 Mean: 2.2
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf) Range: ' 1.8 - 3.0 Range: 0.9-10.2 Range: 2-10 Range: 2-10 Range: 2.0 - 4
Profile Variables (Feet/Feet)
27 Average Water Surface

Slope (Save) 0.0014 0.0029 0.0031 0.0031 0.0110
28 Valley Slope (Svalley)
0.0025 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0131
29 Riffle Slope (SdfFle) Mean: 0.0019 Mean: 0.0070 Mean: 0.005 Mean: 0.005 Mean: 0.017
Range: 0.0006 - 0.0033 Range: 0.0008 - 0.0167 Range: 0.0012 - 0.0068 Range: 0.0012 - 0.0068 Range: 0.0044 - 0.0242
30 Pool Slope (Spool) Mean: 0.0004 Mean: 0.0004 Mean: 0.0012 Mean: 0.0012 Mean: 0.0044
Range: 0.0000 - 0.0006 Range: 0.0000-0.0013 Range: 0 - 0.0019 Range: 0 - 0.0019 Range: 0 - 0.0066
Profile Ratios
31 Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 1.4 Mean: 2.4 Mean: 1.6 Mean: 1.6 Mean: 1.6
Slope (SwfidS.e) Range: 0.4 - 2.4 Range: 0.28 - 5.8 Range: 0.4 - 2.2 Range: 0.4 - 2.2 Range: 0.4 - 2.2
32 Pool Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.3 Mean: 0.06 Mean: 0.4 Mean: 0.4 Mean: 0.4
Slope (SpooVSave) Range: 0 - 0.4 Range: 0 - 0.18 Range: 0 - 0.6 Range: 0 - 0.6 Range: 0 - 0.6
Materials (Millimeters)
D16 N/A 0.6 NA NA NA
D35 0.44 4.7 NA NA NA
D50 1.9 7.2 1.5-16 1.5-16 0.125-2.0

D84
12
17
NA
NA _
NA
D95 36 30 NA NA NA

TABLE 6B
BISHOP STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Morphological Characteristics of Reference and Proposed Channels
Variables Reference ro osed
UT to Reedy Creek
(E5/4) Dula Thoroughfare
(E/C 5/6) Dula Thoroughfare
T (D/6) UT Dula Thoroughfare
(E/C 4/5)
1 Stream Type E E/C D E/C
2 Drainage Area (mi) 0.4 0.16 0.18 0.11
3 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 44 23 25 18.1
Dimension Variables (Feet)
4 Bankfull Cross Sectional

Area (Abkf) 15.5 6.2 6.4 4.7
5 Bankfull Width (Wbkf) Mean: 10.4 Mean: 8.6 Mean: 7.5
Range: 9.6-11.2 Range: 7-10 Range: 6.1-8.7
6 Bankfull Mean Mean: 1.4 Mean: 0.7 Mean: 0.6
Depth (Dbkf) Range: 1.2-1.6 Range: 0.6-0.9 Range: 0.5-0.8
7 Bankfull Maximum Mean: 2.2 an: 1.0 Mean: 0.8
Depth (Dmaz Range: 1.8-2.2 nge: 0.8 - 1.1 Range: 0.7-1.0
[ Braided Channel
System
8 Pool Width (Wpool) Mean: 14.2 an: 12.0 Mean: 10.5
Range: 13.7-14.7 Range:
10.3-12.9 Range: 10 - 12
9 Maximum Pool Mean: 2.3 Mean: 1.1 Mean: 0.9
Depth (D pool) Range: 2.2-2.3 Range: 1.0-1.2 Range: 0.8-1.0
10 Width of Floodprone Mean: 58 Mean: 61 Mean: 62
Area (Wfpa) Range: 42 - 71 Range: 35 - 90 Range: 45 - 85
Dimension Ratios
11 Entrenchment Ratio Mean: 5.6 Mean: 7.1 Mean: 8.3
(Wr a/Wbkf) Range: 3.7-7.4 Range: 4.1 -10.5 Range: 6 - 11.3

12 Width/Depth Ratio
Mean: 7.8
Mean: 12 _
Mean: 12
Wbkf/Dbkf) Range: 6.4-8.1 Range: 8 -16 Range: 8 -10
13 Max. Dnff/Dbkf Ratio Mean: 1.5 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4
Range: 1.4-1.6 Range: 1.2-1.6 Range: 1.2-1.6
14 Low Bank Height/ Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1
1
Max. Dbkf Ratio Range: 1.0-1.2 Range: 1.0-1.3 Braided Channel System .
Range: 1.0-1.3
15 Pool Depth/Bankfull Mean: 1.6 Mean: 1.5 Mean: 1.5
Mean Depth (D ool/Dbkf) Range: ------ Range: 1.4-1.6 Range: 1.4-1.6
16 Pool width/Bankfull Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4
Width (W ool/Wbkf) Range: 1.3-1.4 Range: 1.2-1.5 Range: 1.3-1.6

17 Pool Area/Bankfull
Mean: 1.2
Mean: 1.2 _
Mean: 1.4
Cross Sectional Area Range: 1.1 - 1.2 Range: 1.1 - 1.4 Range: 1.3 - 1.6
Pattern Variables (Feet)
18 Pool to Pool Spacing Mean: 84 Mean: 43.9 Mean: 37.5
(L .) Range: 13-112 Range: 22.4-68.8 Range: 15 - 60

19 Meander Length (Lm)
Mean: 102
Mean: 68.8 _
Mean: 52.5
Range: 81 -137 Range: 51.6-94.6
B
id
d Ch
l S 22.5-82.5
Range:
ra
e
anne
ystem
20 Belt Width (Wbelt) Mean: 76 Mean: 60.2 Mean: 22.5
Range: 68 - 84 Range: 55.9 - 86 Range: 12.8-37.5
21 Radius of Curvature (Ro) Mean: 27.6 Mean: 18.9 Mean: 16.5
Range: 17.1 - 42 Range: 17.2-34.3 Range: 15 - 33.8
22 Sinuosity (Sin)
1.55 1.16 1 1.17
Pattern Ratios
23 Pool to Pool Spacing/ Mean: 8.1 Mean: 5.1 Mean: 5
Bankfull Width (L . bkf) Range: 1.3-10.8 Range: 2.6 - 8 Range: 2-8
24 Meander Length/ Mean: 9.8 Mean: 8 Mean: 7
Bankfull Width (LmMbkr) Range: 7.8-13.2 Range: 6-11 Range: 3-11

25 Meander Width Ratio
Mean: 7.3
Mean: 7 Braided Channel System • -
Mean: 3
(Wbelt/Wbkf) Range: 6.5-8.1 Range: 6.5 - 10 Range: 1.7-
26 Radius of Curvature/ Mean: 2.7 Mean: 2.2 Mean: 2.2
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkr) Range: 1.6-4.0 Range: 2.0-4.0 Range: 2.0-4.5
Pro file Variables (Feet/Feet)
27 Average Water Surface

Slope (Save) 0.0111 0.0070 0.0019 At Grade
28 Valley Slope (Svalley)
0.0172 0.0044 0.0019 At Grade
29 Riffle Slope (SNf„e) Mean: 0.014 Mean: 0.0098 Mean: NA
nge: 0.0105-0.0221 Range: 0.007 - 0.0154 Range: NA

30 Pool Slope (Spool)
an: 0.0069
[
Mean: 0.0028 Braided Channel System
Mean: NA
Range:
0.0016-0,0182 Range: 0 - 0.0014 Range: NA
Profile Ratios
31 Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.4 Mean: NA
Slope (Srifee/Save) Range: 0.9 - 2.0 Range: 1.0 - 2.2 Range: NA

32 Pool Slope/Water Surface
Mean: 0.6
Mean: 0.4 Braided Channel System -
Mean: NA
Slope (Spool/Save) Range: 0.1 - 1.6 Range: 0 - 0.2 Range: NA
Materials (Millimeters)
D16 0.092 NA NA NA
D35 0.29 NA NA NA
D50 0.5 0.125-2.0 0.125-2.0 0.25-4.0
D84 12 NA NA NA
D95 85 NA NA NA
U)
c
3
3
0 O
a
CD r
o N
0
m
0
co
ca
co
O
O
V
v
O
O
?I
O
OI
O
"I
_r -t
r
-l
.C) z O = 1C
C c CD E Q Q. :3- x (0 0 n D 0
(D a (D %
? n O :3 3 (D (n C ? `G CD (D
w C: O N (c/? O O (D ? CD
3 g :3 W- O c (D
r (m
=r 0
=r o
o -a: sv 5' < o Cl) 3 o
X Al ? 0 Sll
C
I W N W _? -+ W _. .... W - - - cn w W I
(D
(D
Cl)
cD
C7
(D
0
0 Z
CL
3
W ?
y -? O
O
v? 3
C37 V N N V N N U7 N N N W . V
C = a
° ? j (CD
Q
OD W CD W m co 0 W W m m 0 N O D (n '*
<D -I
N
O =
D
( (
o a n

( (D
N O 0

O
Q
-1
?

V
w
W
W
0
W
W
W .
C7
m cr
-i w w -4 0 -4 -4 -4 0(D CD O (D
3
0 CD -

c

a
%'c: p
-n
U, U)
n
?M O W
-0o3
OD

: p CO

? ?

G -P

W W

: 4

W 4

G ? 4 .fP 00

? OD

: OD

:
(D
p
a
)
-0 3
-1 W I J -4 J W co co 1 -4 I (
c
t
m
O "O
(D
`
G n

^ W (D
D

1 N co
N
O
N
O
O
W
1
N
O
N
N
co w W O - V -? P Ut w o -? 0 m w a
(p
:d
1
A
W
Ui W V O W O O 00 W U1 O m
p U7 0 CD
c0 00 W W N :,1 W c0 bo W IV IV W c0
a?

3
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0
?
-+ O -? 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
O M V M N W N W W W 4 N W M V
A
A
3
3
o 0
r
o ?
Q
(D
0
VI
V
of
c
CD
CJt
O
r -n
fJ ?, x -n w
C
3 D c? m fJ ,? ° a C- :' O CO CD D
m C , D n m C O 0 0D- O Q w -! O N
sB o c cw m m w c a v- cc
-o cQ
3 can
c ?' O co co o w m, w m 0 c: m
3 N m n `< -t O m m m O W
A = 0 W a N s c c ?- ,< Q cQ• o
SD O CD
5' 3
p O w S w a n m O ?•
O
:3 w
cA X_ o < At m
1 V - N N W W 0 V - N O N V N M l
C4 -- N N W' W O m- N V N O N V
CD 1 CO W b) 6 iO p 6 -? N W in 0O iD L- 6 OD
W N N N N V V V V V N 0 M M 0 0 W
O O CJt ()'1 CP C31 CJt CJt Cn W U7 CI1 0 0 0 0 0 0
o I-*' Cn N N N N v V V V V N cat Ui I
p W W W W W CO CD O O CO O) W W W GJ W W
W V 1 0 - O W E W U7 O O W 0-? O -1
O IV 6 6 :-1 w O O M IV .A 6 -- :P IV m c0
1 A CD N O N OD .P (n 1 CO V O OD -P -I " O N
C) O oo N %4 N aD O P GD O in OD N W ?1I OD o)
Ip 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O Do N N N W CTI W N CO V -? W O) CJt W W ()'1
-i
CD
(D
U)
V
CD
cs
cD
N
Q. Z
3
Q
C
!S1
y k 03
0

v? O
3

o
N :u
CCL?
m
m
C

TI CD C
D
CD O
O
Q
0 CD a1
(D CD O N fD
77
CO , 1 0

O w C:
CL 3
c? c? a ° 3
?Y c n
CD
m
0.
CD
N (/?

o a

co
N
<D
o R

(D
01
3
o
N
?D
7
A
fD
1
VIVA MMIS JNIISIX3
a XIaN3ddV

'J
J

7-
L

0
E

F

J
1

-o 2!
-o
o ° =4 O m
ai y a N/ y to to
-3 3
0
0 S .

3 < x
x O

x 3 CD

x 3 0 x -4 1
0)
07 N G1 ?I O 0) to 00 O A
N D)
La Cn w
CD
tD CD to
CD CD 0
v
D
O O O O O N N N N p p N N N N N N N N N N N
W C4 GO w w 'V V -1 -I i
-,J V v -4 v v .A P A A A

0 0 0 co w t?+

V w

CO ?

00 W

CO to

v

N

?
N

P
N

?
N

A
N N

O W

aD t)7

CTi W

O W

a7 W

y

w
w w

c o co

CD
D
_
'
? N W .A N OD Dl B OO N -4 OD M O OD -l mil

W

?
W

0

0
O

w
0

0
0

OD
0
>
W
0
>
N
Ol

O
P
>
S
ig
>
N
A

O
-A

?

N

cci

N

coo

L

cn

?

N

Owo x
w
3

w
N
CNi1
W
N
N
N -4
N
N w -A N
W ?
N ou 00 I N -? aD V

C n o
t 0 to O to w CA W CO co V
. O O N OO 0 W -? 91 0 ? p ?
o
V CA Co W v tr cc cn °1 9 co w 3 ? w (n ? to 0) w ?
n

?- s v
O O N N N N N N N N O
0 N N N N - N N N - n m
m a) s rn o) a' w w 0 to rn N ,A N d) W ? 3 A N co O N OD S

p1
N N N O P, w p W A N N N ? W N O P N N N N N N ?
? v
V ;0, Ct CI A 0 ? W V i:4 W 0 ? 6 W N V S W 'd ,A G> CA A :I
N 0 N C
3 V
'a O y
O w p W 00 CA .J OD 0) OD C i V !O :-4 O 0)
? -4 0 V i i to N N
N to N lD J C ' 00 «9 V o (D 7 3
V O o> -J N O

O y
h

O

O Z1 CD
? O 0)
N N 0 -1, r V -?
N t2 T
0 0 0 0 i V 0 ? J i p i O tJI ? ? ? OD C D
0
0 0 0 0 0 W W N Q O P G V O O „r
m
3
•a ? ? j ? ? CTl 00 w O W w 00
? N i Cn 00 G1 0) O M
0

? ? '? ? ? V Q1 ?l ? V O Cif 01 p ? ?
w ? W N W W W N =
in A N tn P, P M w ? y ? A - v co W ? V 0 ? -? -4

y 40 CD 00 w 00 i? N W P N cn cn W O N N W
,p
cn
r?

p1
m 0 ? ? G7 G) ? m ? m 3

m
1

N

S '
O

O
M
CD
O

CD

O

7 '
N
7

3

N
3

n '
S

(DD
0) 1

1
L

1
1

Cross-section 1: riffle, Camp Branch
210
209
N
w
O 208
R
d
W
207
206
0
? F I I 1 -T - - - - - - - - - - -
--- - - - T r r - - - - - -- -P -
2
;,
?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
--
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
I
i I
I ? 'I
I

A

1s

g
I

I
I

I
Drainage Area = 2.4 mi2

d Aexistina = 38 7ft2 I
?' < •' 4: Wbkf = 21.3 ft

f 1 t S `?t ,

N e
i
' Dbkf = 1.8 ft

Dmax 2.7 ft
.
,.•
`
'rC?\ Wbkf/Dbkf = 11.8

i`

r r r?r ..
ENT = 8.5
LBH = 2.7 ft

ti . r. r?s S BHR 1.0
Stream Type = E

I ? ? ? III
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Horizontal Distance (feet)

Cross-section 2: pool, Camp Branch
210
209
208
d 20
c
0
d 20
W
20
i
`y
J
204 - ,
I
it
203-----
0
i
5 10
40 45
15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal Distance (feet)

211
210
l
209
W
p 208

Cross-section 3: riffle, Camp Branch

_
W PI
207 /;,
206 a:
'S
205 - -
0
- J -- I TP L-1--I--! -I--I-I--I-I----I-?--?-!--?-I--I--I-?--?-?--?-I--?-t--I--t-]--L-

15 20 25 30
Horizontal Distance (feet)
Drainage Area = 2.4 mil
Aex,shnq - 52P fl2
Wbkf = 19.6 ft
Dbkf =2.Oft
Dmax =2.4 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = 9.9
ENT = 3.8
LBH = 3.1 ft
BHR = 1.3
Stream Type = E
I
35 40 45 50
5 10

209
208 1
207 -
d) 206
O
ca
d 205 7 Drainage
W
204
203
AeXStng
1A/hkf = 1
202 - - --
0 5
Cross-section 4: riffle, Camp Branch
10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (feet)
30
35
M M M M M M M M Ml l111? M M M M M M = = M
Cross-section 5: riffle, Camp Branch
212
211
210
209
d
v
0 208
d
W 207
206
205
204 -
0

i P
i
A
xiSt
ng

'' 1f
Drainage Area - 2.4 mil
D 9
A?
,kf,
ba
kf
II
,
F f J
1 T ? ?F 21
- e ev ti b ase d
t4 i
?e>istn, = 44.1 't2 o fi eld ind ica tor , f1
4 '
'Nbkf = 16.5 ft s ,_ ,?t r t? ?a i
Dbkf = 2.2 ft
E r
jY V '

Dmax =2.6 ft i
j
, :t
`NbKf/Dbkf = 7.5
IN
Siean?
EN- = 6.6 *0. Qo? 1 s
?
LBH = 3.1 ft
BHR = 1.2 saga+r r
'

Stream Type = E Tt•7
;
1

10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80 90
100
Horizontal Distance (feet)
r r I• r llllli ?¦ r r r llr ll? r lll? ?¦ t?l r r r llll?
Cross-section 6: pool, Camp Branch
209
208
207
r
206
c
0
m 205
W
204
203
202
0
10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (feet)
60
i
70
r llllr llll? r llr Ir llr r ?¦ Ir r llllr llllr ?¦ r rr Ir r? r
Cross-section 7: pool, Camp Branch
210
209
208
207
206
205
d
p 204
M
lL 203
202
201
200
I L
199 t -
198 - T
0 10
20 30 40 50 60
G [TI 1
nk 11 I V2%
a d?o cbp . bet i
rr nd
- - - ---- ---- ._ . `- 1-yam+-
70 80 90 100 110 120
Horizontal Distance (feet)
Drainage Area = 2.7 mil
Aexi?twa = R9 2 ft2
Wbkf 13.4 ft
Dbkf = 2.9 ft
Dmax =3.3 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = NA
FPA = NA
ENT = NA
ILBH=6.8ft
BHR = 2.1
Stream Type = NA
30 140 150 160 170

Cross-section 8: riffle, Camp Branch
209
208
207
206
205
O
204
O
O
> 203
O
W
202
201
200
199
198
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Horizontal Distance (feet)
2
150 160 170
r¦ rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ?Cross-section 9: riffle, Camp Branch

211
206
w
a?
m
r0 201
m
P
196
191
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
Horizontal Distance (feet)
M w M M M M M r r M M M IM M= r r
Cross-section 10: pool, Camp Branch
206
205
204
203
202
201
ar 200
W
W?
wp 199
198
W
197
196
195
194
193
192
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Horizontal Distance (feet)
M M M r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Cross-section 1 UTCB: UT to Camp Branch
211.5
210.5
Y
V-
W
V
N 209.5
0
U
208.5
207.5
0
- i

I

'

---

--

--

-
-

--

---

--

--

-- i
I

--- --- --- -----
--- ------
I---
--
- - --- ---
------ --- --- --- ----------- FPA
I
exist in 1

Drainage Area = 0.3 mi2
i

Aexistinq = 92 ft2
Wbkf=15.7 ft
. r reP Dbkf = 0.6 ft
n.
V
Dmax = 1.4 ft
., ? Wbkf/Dbkf = 26

ENT 6.4
_ 1.4 ft
L
BH
? I
B
,.y Stream Type = C

10 20 Horizontal 40
Distance (feet)
50
60
M M M w M M M M M M M M w M M M M M M
Cross-section 2UTCB: UT to Camp Branch
211
210
209
d
m 208
U
vn
0
207
it
d
206
205
204
0
- FP --- --- --- --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ?- --- ---
i
A xistm9
_
I?, I
t 'VII{ ? 1 ?I r?X
f

`M?c ?dv
?It
Drainage Area = 0.3 mil a

AExiS'"ing = 13.3 ft wv"
f
W okf = 6.0 ft c^
Pry
=` Y ?
Dbkf = 1.6 ft a
?
Dmax = 2.7 ft i
W okfDbkf = 4
ENT = 17
LBH = 1.5 ft
BHR = 1.1 .?; .=-..
-
Stream Type - E ,; ---Y°-.e
20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (feet)
100
120
r= M M M= M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Bishop Property On-Site Dimension: Dula Thoroughfare Area
X-sec;t DA(mi ) Abkf(ft) Aexistin (ft) Wbkf (ft) Dave (ft) D... (ft) W/D Ratio FPA Entrench LBH (ft) BHR Stream Type
Dula Thorou ghfare
1 D 0.12 5.1 5.5 5.5 0.9 1.6 6.1 38 6.9 1.7 1.1

3D
0.12
5.1
5.1
6.4
0.8
1.5
8
50
7.8
1.5
1 E
Riffles average 0.12 5.1 5.3 5.95 0.85 1.55 7.05 44 7.35 1.6 1.05
min 0.12 5.1 5.1 5.5 0.8 1.5 6.1 38 6.9 1.5 1
max 0.12 5.1 5.5 6.4 0.9 1.6 8 50 7.8 1.7 1.1
Pools 2D 0.12 4.3 4.7 4.1 1.1 1.7 --- --- --- 1.8 1.1 ---
4D 0.14 5.7 5.7 12.3 0.5 0.9 27 150 12.1 0.9 1
5D 0.14 5.7 5.7 15.9 0.4 0.8 40 50 3.1 0.8 1 C
Wet Area 6D 0.25 8.4 19.7 14 0.6 0.8 23.3 34.9 2.5 1.6 2
average 0.18 6.60 10.37 14.07 0.50 0.83 30.10 78.30 5.90 1.1 1.3
min 0.14 5.7 5.7 12.3 0.4 0.8 23.3 34.9 2.5 0.8 1
max 0.25 8.4 19.7 15.9 0.6 0.9 40 150 12.1 1.6 2
Unnamed Tributary to Dula Thoroughfare
1UTD 0.11 4.8 12.8 3.7 1.3 1.8 2.8 5.8 1.6 3.5 1.9 G
2UTD 0.12 5.1 6.9 4.4 1.2 1.9 3.6 40 9.1 2.3 1.2 E
Riffles 3UTD 0.13 4.4 6.9 6.2 0.7 1.2 8.9 40 6.5 1.5 1.3 E
average 0.12 4.77 8.87 4.77 1.07 1.63 5.10 28.60 5.73 2.4 1.5
min 0.11 4.4 6.9 3.7
-
-
-- 0.7
-- 1.2 2.8 5.8 1.6 1.5 1.2
max 0 .13 5.1 12.8 6.
2
T 1.3_ 1.9 8.9 40 9.1 3.5 1.9
i
Cross-section 1 D: riffle, Dulla
223
FPA
222
Z
a>
12
0 221
m
w
220 -
219 -?
0
__1__?__; _I- - .1_I__
AhXl3u
Drainage Area = 0.12
\e>isting - 5.5 ft2
Wbkf=5.5ft
Dbkf = 0.9 ft
Dmax = 1.6 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = 6.1
F I C -
ENT = 6.9
LBH = 1.7 ft
BHR = 1.1
Stream Type = E
_ _!-_- _-
5 10 15
72.
s• l"!Y i ,? -s? 4i': 7 ,A9i? ,.. ?4A jl?=y> ??
20 25 30 35
Horizontal Distance (feet)
.s
40

Cross-section 2D: pool, Dulla
222
221 Aexlsu s
----- -----
A,,., ank ull
elev tion
base on
r
y
slop
bets
FF
v erns -
secti ns 1 D
o 220 ani. D

W
ii
219
I
218 -- -
-
-
--
-
-
- -
i -
-
-_
0 5 1 0 1 5
20
Drainage Area = 0.12 mi2
Aexisting = 4.7 ft2
Wbkf = 4.1 ft
Dbkf = 1.1 ft
Dmax = 1-7 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = NA
FPA = NA
ENT = NA
LBH = 1.8 ft
BHR = 1.1
Stream Type = NA
25 30
Horizontal Distance (feet)
= = a = m = = = = m = i = i m = m m m
Cross-section 3D: riffle, Dulla
211
210
m
m
w0 209
ca
d
w
208
207
0
5 10 15 20
Horizontal Distance (feet)
25
30

Cross-section 4D: wetland area, Dulla
r
m
m
c
0
r
m
m
w
206
205
204
203 4
0
65 70
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Horizontal Distance (feet)
= = ! = ! = m = m m i m m m
Cross-section 5D: wetland area, Dulla
204
203
m
m
w
c
0
r
ca
m
w
202
201 +
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (feet)
M M M = M M M M M ! M M M M M i M M M
206 i
i
I
205
I
-r
204
203
m
w
0 202
m
W
201 j -
i
199
I I
198 7- - -
0
Al
F) V
y' !
_ ? c-may. ? .. ?? fZ
Cross-section 6D: wetland area, Dulla
7
Drainage Area = 0.25 mil
Aexisting = 197 ft2
W bkf = 14.0 ft
P
- -I--'--'--I- ?- -- - - - Dbkf = 0.6 ft
Dmax = 0.8 ft
ae Isen Wbkf/Dbkf = 23.3
ENT = 2.5
" LBH=1.6ft
BHR = 2.0
Stream Type = C
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Horizontal Distance (feet)
M M = = M = = IM M = = M M M = M M
Cross-section 1 UTD: riffle, UT to Dulla
1
2
d
d
u
c
3
N
0
U
4
5
6
0
0
Horizontal Distance (feet)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35

----

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

----

---

---

---- -

-

- -
PA,
.ekc
cha
nel
-
- A
_

i
- .

- :

? - ....
g ....

-
= 0 11 il elic cha nel
m
.
Drainage Area hkf,
Relic Channel

- -- - Aexisting = 12.8 ft2 - - Drainage Area = 0.11 mil
7ft
Wbkf=3 <
A'? K .
Dbkf = 1.3 ft Aexisting = NA
Dmax = 1.8 ft
- -- - -
Wbkf=8.4ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = 2.8 Dbkf=0.6ft
Dmax = 0.9 ft
ENT = 1.6
5 ft
LBH = 3 Wbkf/Dbkf = 14
.
BHR = 1.9 =iw
,
. ENT = 6.0
Stream Type = G r,
;- : LBH = NA

?btR
t BHR NA
<
r ?
91 Stream Type = C

M M M = M = M M M i = M M M
Cross-section 2UTD: riffle, UT to Dulla
0
0
1
Y
W
U
c
2
O
U_
m
3
4
Horizontal Distance (feet)
5 PA 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-- -- -- --- -- --- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- --- --- -- --- --

i F re
li c an el
re it ha nel
Drainage Area = 0.12 mil _

Relic Channel
Aexistmg = 6.9 ft2 Drainage Area = 0.12 mi2
Wbkf = 4.4 ft ?i
Dbkf=1.2ft
xisting = NA
Ae
max = 1.9 ft
D Wbkf = 14.2 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = 3.6 i Dbkf=0.4ft
_?„;, I , Dmax = 1.1 ft
ENT = 9.1
Wbkf/Dbkf = 35.5
LBH = 2.3 ft

BHR = 1.2
ENT = 2.8
Stream Type = E
LBH = NA
BHR = NA

Stream Type = C
M i i i i i i i i = i i i i i i i i i
Cross-section 3UTD: riffle, UT to Dulla
1
:r
d
N
d
U
c
ca 2
N
76
V
m
3
4
0
0
Horizontal Distance (feet)
5 10 15 20 25

F A-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - -

- - - - -

- - - - -

- - - -

- - --

- - - - -

- - - -

- - - -

- - - - - '?I

- - - - - I

- - - -

- - - - - I

- - - - - I

- - - - --

- - - -

- - - - - II

- - - - - - - - -
i ? I
Aexi
ling
_. L._._. ._._ ._._ _. _._ _._ _._
b sed
1 field indic tors
Drainage Area = 0.13 mi2

Aexisting = 6.9 ft2
Wbkf=6.2ft
Dbkf=0.7ft
Dmax = 1.2 ft
?Vbkf/Dbkf = 8.9

-NT = 6.5
_BH = 1.5 ft
BHR = 1.3
Stream Type = E

Pattern: Camp Branch
Reaches 1 and 2 Camp Branch
UPS ream to Ford
00 to pool
spacing
(feet)
Meander
Length (feet)
Beltwidth
(feet) a ius o
curv
(feet)
45 66 30 16.7
46 85 31 23.4
50 88 33 27.1
51 89 34 27.1
53 92 34 28.1
55 95 35 28.6
56 101 36 29.2
58 102 38 29.7
61 103 39 29.7
62 112 40 32.3
64 116 42 32.8
65 123 43 36.5
73 126 46 40.6
73 133 46 40.6
75 135 46 50.0
79 137 52 53.3
79 143 52 53.3
79 147 57 100.0
79 155 63 106.7
89 159 68 116.7
95 172 89 120.0
112 175 97 133.3
118 182 133.3
120 200 133.3
122 209 200.0
122 237
140 240
145
Median 74 133 42.5 40.6
Range 45-145 66-240 30-97 17-200
Reach 3 Camp Branch
Downstream of Ford
Pool to pool
spacing (feet) Meander
Length (feet) Beltwidth
(feet)
19
22
25
27
28
28
32
34
36
36
36
No repetitive riffle and pool 37
pattern. 37
37
37
39
40
44
44
45
45
47
68
79
Median NA NA 37
Range NA NA 19-79
! = = = = = m
Pattern: Dula Thoroughfare
Reach 1 Dulla
Upstream/Stream Reach

Pool to pool
spacing (feet) Meander
Length
(feet)
Beltwidth
(feet)
Beltwidth/
bkf
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
No repetitive riffle and 8
pool pattern 8
8
9
10
10
13
14
16
20
20
Median NA NA 8 1.33333333
Low NA NA 6 1
High NA NA 20 3.33333333

Reach 2 Dulla
Downstream/Wet Area Reach
00 to Poo
spacing
(feet) can er
Length
(feet)
Beltwidth
(feet)

N
i
i
o repet
t
ve riffle and pool pattern

Median NA NA NA
Low NA NA NA
High NA NA NA
M M M M ! i M M M M M M a M M M M M i
Pattern: Unnamed Tributary to Dula Thoroughfare
Reach 2 UT Dulla
Downstream E-t pe Reach
Pool to pool
spacing
(feet) Meander
Length
(feet)
Beltwidth
(feet)
Radius of
Curv (feet)
23 40 10 13.1
26 42 14 19.7
27 45 16 21.9
28 46 16 24.1
32 49 17 24.1
33 53 18 24.1
33 53 18 26.3
34 61 19 30.6
35 62 19 30.6
37 67 20 35.0
37 68 21 35.0
41 71 22 39.4
42 74 24 43.8
43 77 25 48.1
43 80 29 48.1
46 81 29 48.1
46 83 31 61.3
48 97 32 61.3
54 97 38 70.0
54 100 41 70.0
56 100
58 106
63

Median 41 69.5 20.5 35.0
Low 23 40 10 13.1
High 63 106 41 70
Reach 1 UT Dulla
Upstream G-t a Reach
00 to
pool Meander
spacing Length
(feet) (feet)

Beltwidth
(feet)

Beltwidth/
bkf
22 5.9
18 4.9
21 5.7

No re
etitive riffl
d
p
e an
ool
tt
p
pa
ern

Median NA NA 21 5.7
Low NA NA 18 4.9
High NA NA 22 5.9
M M i M M i M M M i M M M M i M M M M
Profile: Camp Branch Reaches 1 and 2
209.00
207.00
205.00
203.00
201.00
199.00
197.00
195.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
a a a a a is a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Camp Branch Profile - Reach 1 & 2
Survey conducted by Corr! & Kendrick (to sta 602) and Grant,
Heather, & Ben (rest of stream)
The following calculations are a result of printing out the profile
graph (as originally surveyed) and amending point by point
Revised Bed Revised WS
Station Feature Elevation Elevation
-3 206.81 207.70
6.4 206.72 207.70
21 207.58 207.70
23 TR1 207.54 207.69
42 207.50 207.63
68 BR1 207.11 207.48
72 206.92 207.48
85.5 Pi 206.50 207.48
114 206.97 207.48
135 TR2 207.38 207.48
144 207.09 207.46
149.4 BR2 206.86 207.45
152.5 206.48 207.45
164 206.45 207.45
197 P2 205.51 207.45
203 206.42 207.44
216 TR3 207.33 207.43
230 206.72 207.02
243.5 206.57 207.00
250.5 BR3 206.44 206.99
264 206.07 206.99
280 206.57 206.99
295.5 P3 204.82 206.99
306 206.26 206.99
310.5 TR4 206.79 206.99
323 206.84 206.96
341 BR4 206.23 206.48
311 204.93 206.48
351.5 P4 204.10 206.47
374 205.95 206.46
381.5 TR5 206.24 206.43
390 205.83 206.43
393 205.38 206.39
401 BR5 205.78 206.38
420 205.24 206.38
430 P5 205.82 206.37
438 TR6 206.16 206.36
444 206.15 206.35
460 BR6 205.88 206.03
462 205.35 206.03
468 204.73 206.03
482 P6 204.19 206.03
486.5 203.68 206.03
492 205.03 206.03
495 TR7 205.88 206.02
506 205.75 205.90
524 BR7 205.38 205.78
528 205.07 205.77
533.5 P7 204.51 205.77
543 TR8 205.25 205.77
548 205.58 205.73
552 BR8 205.42 205.73
557 204.42 205.73
566 P8 203.77 205.73
582 TR9 205.27 205.73
589 205.52 205.67
602 BR9 205.19 205.58
622 205.07 205.57
G:\Projects\Projects02\02-113.34 Bishop Restoration Planning\stream-measurements\Profile\ADJUSTED TO NCDOT BM\Camp Branch Profile_facet
slopes_5_6_04.xls Camp Branch - Reach E

640 204.44 205.57 1281 201.75 203.60
653 205.34 205.56 1297 P14 202.60 203.60
673 P9 204.43 205.56 1309 202.51 203.60
686 203.07 205.56 1329 201.43 203.59
704 204.98 205.56 1339 202.51 203.59
710 TR9b 205.15 205.56 1348 202.68 203.59
719 205.24 205.54 1361 201.83 203.59
734 BR9b 205.16 205.54 1376 202.38 203.59
756 P9b 204.78 205.50 1395 TR15 203.24 203.59
778 TR10 205.24 205.50 1412 202.41 203.46
782 205.25 205.48 1428 BR15 202.79 203.45
818 205.07 205.21 1440 201.95 203.45
842 BR10 204.48 205.02 1458 P15 202.21 203.45
864 204.24 205.02 1485 202.82 203.45
882 P10 204.64 205.02 1497 TR16 202.81 203.45
893 204.28 205.01 1505 203.32 203.36
907 TR11 204.77 205.01 1535 BR16 202.69 203.07
922 204.40 204.99 1542 202.67 203.07
935 BR11 203.52 204.96 1552 P16 202.67 203.06
946 203.87 204.95 1565 TR17 202.92 203.05
961 P11 203.33 204.94 1570 202.85 203.05
983 TR12 204.60 204.90 1584 BR17 202.48 202.79
999 BR12 203.31 204.21 1592 202.10 202.79
1018 202.22 204.20 1615 202.09 202.79
1028 203.76 204.20 1623 202.59 202.79
1042 P12 202.47 204.20 1632 202.07 202.78
1052 203.66 204.20 1651 202.33 202.77
1072 203.41 204.20 1670 P17 201.43 202.77
1094 TR13 203.75 204.18 1683 201.78 202.77
1125 BR13 203.38 203.83 1704 202.44 202.77
1147 P13 201.82 203.83 1725 202.32 202.77
1170 TR14 202.70 203.83 1733 201.82 202.76
1186 BR14 203.56 203.60 1742 TR18 202.59 202.74
1235 202.87 203.60 1762 202.31 202.52
1242 202.32 203.60 1780 BR18 201.84 202.28
1260 202.39 203.60 1790 201.05 202.27
1272 202.66 203.60 1800 P18 201.11 202.27
G:\Projects\Projects02\02-113.34 B ishop Restoration Planning\stream -measurements\Profile\ADJUSTED TO NCDOT BM\Camp Branch Profile facet
slopes_5 _6_04.xls Camp Branch - Reach E
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M I? M M
1811 201.26 202.27
1819 TR19 201.94 202.27
1841 BR19 201.64 202.17
1845 P19 199.78 202.17
1868 TR20 200.78 202.17
1883 201.96 202.10
1929 201.60 201.73
1950 BR20 201.28 201.53
1963 200.27 201.53
1987 200.36 201.52
1999 P20 201.35 201.52
2015 199.84 201.49
2028 199.74 201.48
2033 TR21 201.19 201.47
2054 201.24 201.47
2078 BR21 200.86 201.19
2084 199.79 201.19
2101 P21 199.44 201.18
2124 200.18. 201.17
2158 TR22 200.97 201.14
2188 BR22 200.24 200.73
2200 199.45 200.73
2221 P22 199.40 200.72
2241 199.37 200.71
2254 TR23 200.09 200.70
2258 198.80 200.56
2289 198.59 200.54
2308 199.21 200.54
2316 200.54 200.54
2322 BR23 198.09 200.37
2337 198.81 200.37
2344 199.22 200.37
2374 P23 199.57 200.37
2397 199.47 200.37
2410 198.90 200.37
2429 198.78 200.37
G:\Projects\Projects02\02-113.34 Bishop Restoration Planning\stream-measurements\Profile\ADJUSTED TO NCDOT BM\Camp Branch Profile facet
slopes_5_6_04.xls Camp Branch - Reach E
= m = = = = = = = m = = = = = = = = =
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Camp Branch Profile - Reach 3
Revised Bed Revised WS
Station Feature Elevation Elevation
2458 199.71 200.37
2477 TR24 200.21 200.36
2534 200.07 200.19
2544 BR24 199.00 200.08
2574 199.87 200.08
2580 P24 199.42 199.98
2603 TR25 199.96 199.96
2633 BR25 199.00 199.40
2638 198.94 199.40
2668 P25 199.01 199.40
2684 TR26 199.25 199.39
2686 199.13 199.38
2706 198.91 199.26
2725 BR26 198.76 199.09
2759 198.56 199.09
2780 197.71 199.09
2804 P26 198.31 199.09
2825 197.76 199.08
2845 198.63 199.08
2859 198.08 199.08
2883 TR27 198.88 199.03
2892 BR27 198.49 198.98
2915 P27 198.19 198.98
2938 TR28 198.83 198.93
2948 BR28 198.29 198.79
2955 P28 197.90 198.78
2961 TR29 198.55 198.77
2972 198.41 198.76
2985 198.59 198.74
2997 BR29 198.10 198.48
3014 197.63 198.48
3032 P29 197.58 198.47
3043 TR30 198.22 198.47
3088 198.35 198.45
3120 BR30 197.85 198.03
3129 196.84 198.03
3146 197.85 198.03
3173 197.31 198.03
3191 197.33 198.02
3209 197.61 198.02
3224 196.86 198.02
3243 196.65 198.02
3272 196.49 198.02
3289 P30 197.60 198.01
3306 196.07 198.01
3327 196.18 198.01
3342 197.01 198.01
3382 197.28 198.01
3400 197.30 198.01
3415 TR31 197.71 198.01
3434 197.75 197.86
3466 197.16 197.35
3526 BR31 196.59 196.68
3531 195.87 196.67
3546 P31 196.00 196.66
3558 TR32 196.61 196.66
3587 196.50 196.62
3623 196.01 196.29
3657 BR32 195.44 195.56
3671 194.20 195.56
3682 194.06 195.56
3698 195.37 195.56
3716 195.03 195.55
3743 194:79 195.55
3751 194.08 195.55
3784 194.41 195.55
3801 P32 195.21 195.55
3816 195.31 195.55
G:\Projects\Projects02\02-113.34 Bishop Restoration Plan ning\stream-measurements\ProfileWDJUSTED TO NCDOT BM\Camp Branch Profile-facet
slopes_5_6_04.xls Camp Branch - Reach G

3828 195.02 195.55 4526 191.77 192.03
3842 194.73 195.55 4534 P38 191.51 192.03
3860 195.35 195.55 4540 191.12 192.02
3885 195.02 195.55 4560 191.15 192.02
3905 194.54 195.55 4584 191.55 192.01
3910 194.71 195.55 4591.5 TR39 191.70 192.01
3929.5 TR33 195.34 195.50 4618 BR39 191.42 191.81
3944 BR33 194.20 194.61 4655 190.92 191.81
3963 193.76 194.61 4670 P39 190.37 191.81
3976 P33 193.45 194.61 4699 191.13 191.81
3994 193.56 194.61 4716 TR40 191.49 191.81
4028.5 TR34 194.39 194.60 4752 191.54 191.66
4055 BR34 193.67 194.32 4788 191.05 191.36
4060 193.03 194.30 4832 BR40 190.69 191.22
4074 P34 193.23 194.29 4853 P40 190.10 191.22
4094 TR35 194.10 194.29 4894 TR41 190.86 191.22
4123 BR35 193.36 193.55 4923 190.75 190.88
4140 193.16 193.55 4952 190.19 190.46
4158 192.91 193.55 5003 190.22 190.45
4169 192.41 193.54 5025 BR41 189.79 190.15
4180 P35 192.29 193.54 5050 P41 189.20 190.14
4198 TR36 193.10 193.54 5068 TR42 189.77 190.13
4208 BR36 193.08 193.47 5100 189.09 189.43
4240 192.88 193.47 5131 189.16 189.42
4265 192.94 193.47 5169 BR42 188.57 188.98
4285 P36 192.16 193.47 5189 .187.59 188.97
4302 192.16 193.47 5222 P42 187.51 188.97
4327 TR37 193.21 193.47 5254 TR43 188.52 188.97
4360 193.08 193.38 5315 188.78 188.95
4395 BR37 192.69 193.08 5385 BR43 188.49 188.83
4407 191.96 193.08 5421 187.95 188.83
4437 P37 192.08 193.08 106.01
4454 TR38 192.93 193.08
4468 192.53 192.65
4499 BR38 191.06 192.04
4505 191.04 192.04
4512 191.31 192.04
G:\Projects\Projects02\02-113.34 Bishop Restoration Planning\stream- measurements\Profile\ADJUSTED TO NCDOT BM\Camp Branch Profile_facet
slopes_5_ 6_04.xls Camp Branch - Reach G

Profile: UT to Camp Branch
210
209
208
207
206
m
205
c
0
w
204
m
w
203
202
201
200
199
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Station (feet)

Cf)
'p W W V Ca W W W W W W N N N N N N N CNj? N N N N N N -? --+ -• -? -. .? .? V CA cn
CD C0co M A W N-+--?00 W V V OOCJi? A W N--?0M V V ?CJtA W W W N--»(OCOfO0o0o Wop wNA00O?
00 W A O N N V O N V O 00 00 N W O m -? V CTn V O W O 00 --? O O W V 0 N M O N Oo N O Cn ? cn 0 W p 0 OD -4
7
U)
N
O
p-'N W AD) V 00 co CO -' ---- --U1O-'-i?-'-? NNNN NN NN N NN N N W W W W W W Wp W W C'') W W,p+i,?
Cn A O O O CO O O N W W A A Ul p) N O V O CO O O W W A 0 O V V V W W CO N N A cn to [? O O O
Cn 00 O O O Cn O N V -+ W - O Cn O O V W N O -+ W O W O O O O W W V ro Cn O 6 O V O W
CD
y
CD
CL
W
CD
000000-4 W OV OV W M W W W 4 4 44P? W A W W COiW W W CWON W PQ N) N?O+NN-N----O-000000CODCOOCD C5 CD
OWOU1 V W OV C. A W.WpCOO V tWONM?.pCO W 000Q).PCD-+?1CnO000O-•-?00NCO0CO? C' V: 444 0W0
O CJ1 W CTI A W N Cn A CD CO N O -? O O CO W COO A oD W to V 00 CO co V 00 W 00 V 0) N
O
7
O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O N O 0 0 Ill
N CU N p O V V V ?4 O4 O 'P 'P A A A A?? W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -• O- -? -+ -? -? O D 0 0 0 u
V Cn Cn lr -?Cn IV N-• Oo 6)[>)Q)Cn ?:p A-??ib tb ib CnNIV Oo ibO?1?:A??i ?a :A :A000CO ibOOOO 0- .?<
O O O W CA C17 A N W "'' O Cn W? A A A A W W O Cn W .A CO CD CO O CO U) Cn Cn W W A Cn O Cn V V V -? O CO A Cl) A CO V co CO CO
O
7
D m
6 "a 'C7 =? Q Cr -p or "O '0 'a Q 'O Q' 'D Q -o a -p U 3 N
N W W W AAACTIU7O?p)O V V Opp ODC??CO CO CO .? j w,
N tS n O p 0??? N N N W W W A A a?
CD Cp
CL
C
-i
O
n
a1
3
W
C1
7
C1
M M IM M MI M M W M IM M M MI W W W M M M
Profile: Dula Thoroughfare Downstream Reach
205
204
203
202
a?
a?
0 201
as
W 200
199
198
197
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Station (feet)
M M M M M M w M M w M M M M M M M M M
Profile: Dula Thoroughfare- Upstream Reach
230
f? ? I 1 1
220 - -

M
O

cc
W
210

200 4 - 1

-40 160 360 560 760 960
Station (feet)
M M = M = r M = M r W M W
Dull a Throughfare Profile Composite
Station I Bed
Elevation I Water Surface
Elevation
Composite Bed Water Surface 357 217.11 217.19

Stain
Elevation
Eleva ion Feature 374
382 216.27
216
11 216.37
. 216.12

-41.5
226.66
227.25 383
upstream culvert 390 215.08
215
1 215.29

0
225.94
226.24
downstream culvert KX01 401 .
214.92 215.26
215
13
5 225.9 226.25 glide 407 214.5 .
215
14
10 226.09 226.24 TR KX02 416 214.53 .
215
12
15 225.87 226.03 BR 426 214.95 .
215
1
18 225.69 225.99 KX03 429 214.96 .
215
21 225.77 225.97 TR 432 214.78 214
98
28 225.74 225.84 MR 436 214.52 .
214
98
33 225.15 225.27 BR 448 214.82 .
214
95
39 225.08 225.28 P 474 214.25 .
214.27
44 225.16 225.26 TR 478 214.05 214
28
4B 224.9 225.07 MR 481 214.18 .
214
29
58 223.96 224.44 P 489 213.82 .
213
97
63 224.28 224.44 HC 506 213.31 .
213
33
77 223.97 223.98 THC 522 213.09 .
213
23
78 223.37 223.52 BHC 528 212.54 .
212
7
100 222.72 222.95 MR KX06 534 212.39 .
212
72
124 222.19 222.35 MR KX07 549 212.48 .
212
69
129 221.72 221.91 BR 554 212.09 .
212.21
133 221.37 221.78 P 560 211.42 212.2
147 221.29 221.57 566 212.02 212
19
160 221.36 221.41 TR 597 211.45 .
211
47
180 221.03 221.18 P 624 210.53 .
210
65
183 221.12 221.14 TR 627 210.1 .
210
25
204 220.07 220.09 MR 651.5 209.51 .
209
58
219 219.35 219.5 x-sect 1D 671.7 209.48 .
209
58
223 219.29 219.43 BR 675 209.33 .
209
51
228 219.15 219.41 P 707 208.53 .
208
68
233 219.24 219.42 TR 713 208.42 .
208
69
239.5 219.15 219.31 BR KX14 716 208.54 .
208
66
244 218.96 219.31 P 721 208.34 .
208
42
255 219.15 219.31 TR 724 207.81 .
207.93
264 219.01 219.15 THC 728 207.69 207
91
264.5 218.57 218.74 BHC 736 207.79 .
207
81
272 218.35 218.72 P 741 207.64 .
207
73
280 218.57 218.72 TR 754 207.29 .
207
51
296.5 218.01 218.07 BR, THC formed by fallen tree 770 206.87 .
207
47
297.5 217.74 217.93 BHC 805 206.86 .
207
48
303.5 217.39 217.9 P 838 207.26 .
207
49
306.5 217.81 217.89 TR 845 207.13 .
207
34
312 217.72 217.87 BR 869 206.69 .
206
77
315 217.47 217.86 P 901 205.88 .
206
08
318 217.75 217.87 TR 915 205.7 .
206.08
330 217.48 217.63 BR 924 205.9 206
04
332 217.31 217.61 P 936 205.56 .
205
84
337 217.51 217.62 TR 960 205.17 .
205.77
Feature
BHC
BR
P
P
TR
MR KX29
BR
P
G/TR KX29
BR
P
TR KX28
MR
BR
DEBRIS JAM
BASE OF DEBRIS JAM
P KX30
TOP OF ROOT GRADE CONTROL
TOP AT 1.3
MOUTH OF CULVERT
UTH OF CULVERT
P
TR
THC
BHC
P KX37
TR
MR X-SECT 3D
BR
P, AGGREGATION REACH STARTS
SLACKWATER POOL
BOTTOM OF SLACK WATER
2 KX 47
Z KX48
KX50
M M r w M = " M M = M M M M M M
Composite
Station Bed
Elevation Water Surface
e a i
Feature Composite
Station Bed
Ele
ati Water Surface
El
i

994
205.36
205.54
KX52
3545 -
v
on
198.42 evat
on
199
03
1036.5 205.04 205.19 FK7.5 WETLAND 3615 198.6 .
199
05
1067 204.33 204.52 FK8 3660 198.57 .
199.02
1119 203.52 203.86 3700 198.5 198.96
1134 203.43 203.77 X-SECT413 3722 198.33 198
97
1164 203.18 203.53 3785 198.42 .
198
85
1219 202.84 203.14 3842 198.32 .
198
76
1278 202.46 202.69 3875 198.07 .
198
73
1317 202.28 202.52 3900 198.41 .
198
65
1373 201.92 202.21 3920 198.27 .
198.62
1388 201.87 202.15 X-SECT5D 3945 198.25 198
6
1436 201.58 201.94 3958 197.73 .
198.43
1509 201.38 201.82 3963 197.97 198
45
1585 201.24 201.47 3981 198.26 .
198
37
1620 200.75 201.35 CONVERGENCE OF DULLA W/DITCH .
1693 200.93 201.27
1744 200.79 201.18
1778 200.81 201.13 KY28
1824 200.48 201.04
1875 200.6 201
1948 200.37 200.95 KY29
2005 200.27 200.93
2085 200.26 200.87
2138 200.29 200.85
2210 199.82 200.82
2280 200.05 200.83
2352 200.42 200.82 KY33
2375 200.2 200.85 FL01 DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF DAM
2400 200.07 200.82
2427 199.6 200.81 FL02
2473 199.6 200.81
2617 199.42 200.8
2711 199.18 200.8
2780 199.51 201.05
2849 199.34 200.8 FL08
2930 199.16 200.8
2996 198.82 200.83 CONV. OF DULLA W/DITCH, BEAVER IMP.
3055 198.72 200.78
3096 199.03 200.77
3118 198.95 200.78
3186 198.94 201.78
3214 198.67 200.77 FH25 BEAVER DEN
3253 198.7 200.78 FH23
3283 198.89 200.78
3300 198.75 200.79 FH21
3350 198.76 200.77
3394 200.77 200.77 TOP OF BEAVER DAWH20 SURFACE
3397 199.23 199.34 BASE OF BEAVER DAM
3431 198.73 199.11 SF11
3475 198.64 199.1
Feature
FH03
EHIND LOGJAM)

Weighted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run:
Percent Pool: 50 Percent Gl ide: ?77? Pebble Count,
Material Size Range (mm) Total # ---
silt/clay 0 0.062 14.0 # ---
very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 # --
fine sand 0.13 0.25 0.0 # Note: Cam Branch Reference Reach Reach 1
medium sand 0.25 0.5 0.0 #
coarse sand 0.5 1 7.0 # Pebble Count
---
very coarse sand 1 2 1
0 # ,
100% -
very fine gravel 2 4 .
10.0 # 90%
fine gravel 4 6 8.0 # i
fine gravel 6 8 16.0 # 80% - - -I'
medium gravel 8 11 18.0 # 70%
medium gravel 11 16 9.0 #
coarse gravel 16 22 8.0 # 60% - -
coarse gravel 22 32 5.0 # 50%
very coarse gravel 32 45 1.0 # ~ ¢
ve coarse ravel 45 64 2.0 # `m 40% - - -- -- -
small cobble 64 90 1.0 # b- 30% i- - - - TL
T
medium cobble 90 128 0.0 #
J

large cobble
128 180
0.0
# -
-
v 20%
a -_ `!;? _,
T
_
very large cobble 180 256 0.0 # 0- 10 /°
__- _ , T
- i
•
small boulder 256 362 0.0 # `
?
-??
small boulder 362 512 0.0 # 0%
medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 # 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 # Particle Size (mm) --rCumufative Percent ? Percent Item - . Riffle -A-Pool - -Run -Glide
very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 #
bedrock 0.0 # Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
Weighted Count: 100 D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock
Tru e Total Particle Count: 100 0.610 4.66 7.2 17 30 14% 8% 77% 1% 0% 0%

Weighted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run:
Percent Pool: 50 Percent Gl ide: Pebble Count,
Material _
Size Range (mm) Total # ---
silt/clay 0 0.062 16.7 # ---
very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 # --
fine sand 0.13 0.25 3.8 # 41 Note: Cam Branch Reach 2
medium sand 0.25 0.5 0.0 #
coarse sand 0.5 1 7.7 # Pebble Count, --
very coarse sand 1 2 0.0 #
100%
- - -- - -
very fine gravel 2 4 12.8 # 90%
_-
fine gravel 4 6 16.7 #
i
fine gravel 6 8 20.5 # 80% ?
-
----;--,-?!
ravel
medium 8 11 7.7 # °

medium gravel
11 16
7.7
# -, ,
coarse ravel 16 22 2.6 # 60% -
coarse gravel 22 32 2.6 # m 50% _
very coarse gravel 32 45 0.0 # ?
ve coarse ravel 45 64 0.0 # ? 40% -
-?
cobble
small 64 90 0.0 # b- 30% ---- --- -
- -

medium cobble
90 128
0.0
#
c i
large cobble 128 180 0.0 # 20% - - * '- --
very large cobble 180 256 0.0 # a- 10% - -?;
- -
small boulder 256 362 0.0 # ? ?

small boulder
362 512
0.0
# 0% • •??f • . .. , !
medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 # 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 # Particle Size (mm) -a-Cumulative Percent ? Percent Item -d- Riffle -0-Pool -+R-Run -Glide
very large boulder 2048 4096 1.3 #
bedrock 0.0 # Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
Weighted Count: 100
-1 1 D16
F D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock
Tru e Total Particle Count: 78
-
_J #N/A
1 2.89 5.0 10 19 17% 12% 71% 0% 1% 0%
w = w w = = = M = " = M M M i M = M
Wei hted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run:
Percent Pool: 50 Percent Gl ide: Pebble Count,
Material Size Range (mm) Total # ---
sift/clay 0 0.062 13.8 # --
very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 # ---
fine sand 0.13 0.25 0.0 # Note: Cam Branch Reach 3
medium sand 0.25 0.5 0.0 #
coarse sand 0.5 1 0.0 # Pebble Count,
100
/
?

very coarse sand
1 2
2.5
# °
t--+,-
?
very fine gravel 2 4 1.3 # 90% - -- - - -
-
fine gravel 4 6 0.0 #
80% - -- -- - -
-
fine gravel 6 8 7.5 # - -- -
LL
medium ravel 8 11 5.0 # 70%
medium gravel 11 16 6.3 # I
i
coarse gravel 16 22 7.5 # 60% -- -
coarse gravel 22 32 8.8 # 50% - - -
very coarse gravel 32 45 7.5 #

very coarse ravel
45 64
5.0
#
40% • -
- - - - -- -
small cobble 64 90 0.0 # Y 30% -
medium cobble 90 128 1.3 #

g v 20%
i
very lar
e cobble 180 256 0.0 # a 10% '
* --? •
j
small boulder 256 362 0.0 # a-?-? -^? _?
t
"
'
'
'
'
small boulder 362 512 0.0 # -?¦
¦ :
0% - - t ? •
-
. *?t t ?
* ?
? ? t
medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 # 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 # Particle Size (mm) ---Cumulative Percent ? Percent Item -Riffle -Pool - Run -¦-Glide
very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 #
bedrock 32.5 # Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
Weighted Count: 100 D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock
Tru e Total Particle Count: 80 #N/ k 7.59 13.8 39 60 14% 39/. 49% 3% 0% 33%
M ' w M = = M = = M M = M M M M = M
Weighted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run:
Percent Pool: 50 _ Percent Glide: Pebble Count,
Material Size Range mm Total # -
silt/clay 0 0.062 48.9 # ---
very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 # ---
fine sand 0.13 0.25 0.0 # Note: Dulla Thoroughfare (Upstream Reach
medium sand 0.25 0.5 0.0 #
coarse sand 0.5 1 0.0 # Pebble Count, ---
very coarse sand 1 2 7.5 # 100% . - - - - - - - -?---¦
very fine gravel 2 4 8.5 # 90%
fine gravel 4 6 1.2 #
fine gravel 6 8 12.1 # 80%
medium gravel 8 11 9.8 # 70%
medium gravel 11 16 4.9 #
coarse gravel 16 22 1.2 # 60%
coarse gravel 22 32 0.0 # 50%
very coarse gravel 32 45 1.2 # FL-
ve coarse ravel 45 64 1.2 # a? 40%
small cobble 64 90 0.0 # 30%
medium cobble 90 128 0.0 #
large cobble 128 180 0.0 # ' 20%
very large cobble 180 256 0.0 # a 10%
small boulder 256 362 0.0 # 0% * ? * ? * ?_? a s--
small boulder 362 512 0.0 #
medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 # 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 # Particle Size (mm) -Cumulative Percent ? Percent Item - Riffle --Pool - Run -+-Glide
very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 #
bedrock 3.6 # Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
Weighted Count: 100 D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock
,F_ True Total Particle Count: 62 #N/A #N/A #N/A 9 15 49% 8% 40% 0% 0% 4%
M tr t . ??

1

11

APPENDIX D
REFERENCE DATA
J

I

I
-77
ncrs:.. s FDrF:
51 ? rt
n? S r " r t f L,
f --} 'h_D
V D' 5:?0 N1
?- - t
be,
V 4
7t lsy Ni.; .Y'-'f1 C,Ef r 1 ?.aY
?`, • .t 1' y HIGH Roth S I _
R t
4y/ - Y Fai,i• n RU a{ HF It
J ac
7 Hia l:
?- _ -? -- - -
I1Journg L e^ II -[ UT to
1 Net t,rT,./_
CRANE i
CREEK --'``? -
av;t sr` - .? - - - - - -- - .,. -
Kqi .1 r lis
tel ?., s :-
?,' ??Idr3[io .
Q Ch' Vd 1\"'c:]
'tle Y, {_
U•r n rie
- _r - oKe=v.-.
`\ 4 C /1' p 1 I C - C;1i Iingpr•
1 i U J lFln+ 'H r r1-1. ?r
R 8'•iritrs...Ir / r_r ?_I Alheiriar?e
?AC aft • I M O
t 1 N ,! G O 1
?-? ? Y'' _ rr?vs ?r ?r : I S `T A Y
Fr'- -- T 1
y ? - % ice.,;.....
r Lai e
CAMP ?eE
arrus c+an.,ei-d
BRANCH 1
MippplanU - tt G';ead -
dro
UT to
REEDY
yF?alr legs.
CREEK
% ews r A ff
Mt:
_ Umonvgie Cara ,ch 1 1 _/
Ind,
MITIGATION - •"
stout=_\ SITE ?-
ercdington \hpkers
.
1I i?
'afV?11 lies ') ?_l t,-/ .a - ? _ ,? •?
G{I+npel _/ • .. - - - -_ ` n }_T_ r 2;ehier,U?r --
Dwn. by.
REFERENCE SITE LOCATIONS MAF APPENDIX
ECoSc':ence Bishop Site ckdby: WGL Figure
V160 Corporation DETAILED MITIGATION STUDIES Date: July 2004
Raleigh, Nosh Carolina Anson Count North Carolina Project
y, 02-0113.341
1 mi. 0 1 mi. 4 mi.
1:144,000
y 9 V1JIx. ,
Source: 1997 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.57.
i1 mrrsiU tit' > ?t
sa „?ra <
k {
11 L L•J E' ?Y 5 /
k ,• ., ; xs9 x ?,t? ?,q, t
c'
r,{. . n cn,t?_ i? .=-,?. G ?•-t <.. try i. '•9A +c'• t ,?,
K 85 r-
!?m:t? t?4 .? -' - N A?` 1.
(. ¢k v: ,?' .+'0n` ? :f ( 4• r? oa "'Ye ,i ? °i 4{u x?,.. ,:
M L
j . _
' 'fie ? t t. ? 2 ? c ? i i r''^Y" ?rha ? ?, .-• x ,? `-
" t r t d REFERENCE . - ?. F ?-
\ :. 41 k SITE <9 £` `
a r LOCATION 4 r .' „ ..
F \
???.... a /-'\ ?. 3 hn / i?i?. Jg1425. Gu. •mr.« ` ?__' --? i .ts? ?? CK \ -,N May ,\ f .? i •? - i r 'O_ ` ?,{>
i
52 / i i E
( 1
l
3b ?2? h-cl
sd n
- 51
N
.y
A%? 114
s.t 6 W E
-rt
w y K '
!VT
ir"
Q v f /
l Y 4F ^? Y `
Dwn. by: MAF APPENDIX
CcoScience UT to REEDY CREEK Ckdby: WGI_
???' Corporation Reference Site Date: Figure
-- Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Project. July 2004 2A
Raleigh. North Carolina 02-11334
1 Rd -04 0 may CA( k N?'fa?E POOk
Ivs
1 ?
J N
3 m ea
J ig
2 I.? ?o•s 7, y
i?,? Io.H ?. b Z.2 L S? ?,?
3 ?S,s 1??Z l,y 2 z ?z 3.1
A-vr
??? ?S,S la. y I• H Z.Z g ?? S. ?
pals
Z VT 1 ' y 7
13.7
Ivy
I
I
:z
I, p
2-
__
?L
11, L I, Y
2.o Lb
AUi T.
2 z, 3
1, 3 Z. 3
`T
v / 1
C-
C
L
2.3
2,1
2.3
fly-
D
l' O
/, o
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Riffle 1 Riffle ---
108
107
106
0 105
104
W
103
102
101
-- -
.l
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
c'SPC IOn:
Riffle
description: -s

r-- height df Instrument (ft)`
it digfa
notAS,` FS
:(ftl
eletlon
" Y F,S x
: bahkfufl. FS
tnn of hank ?!'fPa
iftt.. chars
tlnrAit?i t. fN ttrttng s'
. i .. n ;
J
m
J

105.82
105.06 10154 103.54
104.86
104.2
103.73
103.47
103.38
103.12
101.75
101.7
101.7
101.69
101.82
102.11
102.87
103.22
diriien s
11.8 7-section area - n
9.6 width '
1.8 d max J di
1.9 hank ht w/d ratio

70.5
W flood prone area 7.4 entratio
hydraulics
?
0.0 velocity (ft'sec)
0.0 dischar e rate, Q (cfs)
0.00 shear stress ((Ibs/tt sq)
0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec)
0.000 unit stream power (Ibs/fUsec)_
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u`
9 8 threshold grain size (mm)
103.8
104.07
104.27
104.38
104.41
check from channel material -
12 measured D84 (mm)
,02 relative roughness 11 3 fric facto)
I
0.000 Nlafining's n from channel material
104.69
104.61
104.86
105.54
107.36 -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Riffle 2 Riffle ---
108
107
106
c
105
w 104
103
102
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
sett
Ri
¦
¦
J
¦
J
J
J
J
elevat" `ti?` `fiarikfull
106.52
106.4 104.77
105.62
105.13
70

di ensi s ;. ,.
17.1 x-section area 1.6 d mean
10.4 width 12.7 wet P
2.2 d max 1.3 h yd radi
2.6 batik ht 6.4 w/d ratio
58.0 W flood cone area 5.6 ent ratio
102.79
105.1
105.21
105.13
104.77
104.27
102.98
102.74
102.59
102.56
102.73
103.05
104.02
104.8
105.12
105.51
105.86
106.01
106.41
107.34
U?ICS
0.0 velocity (fUsec)
0.0 discharge rate, Q (cfs)
0.00 shear stress ((Ibs/ft sq)
0.00 shear velocity (ft/sec
0.000 Unit stream power (Ibs/ft/sec)
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor a/u"
0-.0 threshold grain size (mm)
check from channel material
12 measured D84 (mm)
40.2 relative roughness 12.0 fric. factor
0.000 Manning's n from channef materiai 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Riffle 3 Riffle --
110
109
108
107
0
aa> 106
W
105
104
103
0 10 20
30 40
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
50 60 70
Riffle
<<?.,Tle,g?tof instrume(It.(ft):
t }ariit ?rstance FS FS bU fpa jciianne(; a
notest; ..f_>(ftJ {ft) eta onbank full` to ofbnk7
p (ft) . ; .. ;Slope (f) n109.57
gala"
m
J
J
J
108.1 105.99 105.99
107.87

x-section area 1.4 d mean
F width 12.6 wet P
d max 1.2 d radi`
.0 bank ht 8.1 w/d -ratio
42.0 W flood prone area 3.7 ent ratio
104.21
107.55
106.36
106.44
105.99
105.41
104.59
104.12
104.17
104.02
104.03
104.13
104.92
105.42
106.25
106.89
hydrae cs .: ;:.
0.3 velocity (ft/sec)
4.2 discharge rate, 0 (cfs)
0.00 shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
0.03 shear velocity (ft/sec)
0.001 unit stream power (lbs/ft/sec),
0.00 Fronde number
8.0 friction factor a/u,
0.1 threshold rain size (mm)
107.11
107.21
107.07
107.03
107.63
c elk: rgrn channel, material
12 measured D84 (mm)
34.0 relative roughness 11.6 fric. factor
0,024 Manniq 's n from channel material
109.56
109.6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
109
108
107
9 106
a
105
M 104
103
102
101
Pool 2 Pool ---
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width from River Left to Right (ft)

OC ion: C :.!+ :?i!7Y a
Pool
? ?. erx FraL ? s? ?'+r ?-? s ?.i.ca
hcight,of instrument (ft) ';?, .;_

notes omit
pt,'- 'distance
{fi) FS
(ft)
elevation, FS
hankfull FS
top of hank W fpa
(ft) ?, ani7ei'
slofi (°?f Onhin'J", '
ri"
"'Y V s - , 107.32
.,:
106.36 104.15 104.15
105.57
ti.!rti:? 104.98
104.41
c , A- .i r 104.52
.. Fa * x ?: ?z' ' 104.05
103.77
103.33

17.1 x-section area 1.2 d mean
14.7 width 16.6 wet P
2.3 d max 1.0 h yd radi
2.3 bank ht 4-2-.6 w/d ratio
00 W flood prone area 48 eht ratio
r i 102.85
102.45
?z a= p Aw,,. 102.3
Ij t,t 102.01
101.86
h 7t.' 101.91
xua?r: . ,&< < ` is; `y a :' 101.94
103.93
104
83
.
105
02
.
h??draulics _ .. .
00 velocity (Wsec)
0:0 discharge rate, G (cfs `
0.00 shear stress ((Ibsft s
0.00 shear velocity (ft,sec)
0000 unit strca,n cover Ibs/ft/sec)
000 Froude number
00 friction `factor u/u'
08 threshold rain size mm
#[]; 105.52
t# r x X .: 105.61
fi 105.98
108.3
A9,
chs-ck from t-:hannel m??tarial
4-2 measured D84 mm
2-M relative roughness 44-4 fric. factor
0000 Mannin 's n from channel material,:.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
109
108.5
108
107.5
?F' 107
0 106.5
106
w 105.5
105
104.5
104
103.5
Pool 4 Pool ---
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
sectio • =-, * " . '
Pool

"' heJdhi<Of InS lfUnlent (ft) r?, ;?

notes omit ''
pt. di'stance
(ft) FS
(ft)
I tior? FS
hankfulf FS
fop of bank
' (ft) ehatinel
e (%} Manning?s
n '-
a A LP _ ,r.? t., rY-~ 108.31
?,. .' 108.11 106.26 107.3
107.98
j s tr, n # 107.34
106.9
? _. ,. 106.57
+ <r; 106.21
.K 105.99
r r 105.82
dimensions
18.8 x-section area 1.4 d mean
13.7 width 15.8 wet P
2.2 d max 1.2 h yd radi
3.3 bank ht 4" w/d ratio
0:0 W flood prone area 0 0 ent ratio
k ;?? to 105.37

'
r?=
105.06
104.7
104.49
rz? : t , ; ar 104.15

r ?°`
? ti
.,.,?.?•'?w..
.}- fr `=
104.07
1 L O }' 4 # `. r 104.09
ter, .` # #r 4:" t ;_ t f yr :t'- 104.09
104.11
104.24
fjydratili?s
8 0 velocihv ( Wsec)
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/fUsec)
"0 Froude number
O:.A friction:factor u/u`
0:0 threshold rain size (mm)
i_?....` # 105.72

107.35 ec
ohk from ohannbf haafedal ...,
z?a 107.77
42
measured D84 mm
F< s
_ h t
:. r h_
108.2
33-.7
relative rou hness 4-1? fric. factor

0.000 Mannin 's n'from channel material
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4-
? N
U

U
O
O
I
X C.
fL U
U)
I

N X
CL
N
4-
Cr-
U
N
to
I

CL O
1L
U
cl- 1
M
4- X

Ln U
i
x
CL
r
c
O
C
C
C
L
Q

F?6.6?
CL U.
L
L
4? a
a

a
?'s 1 c
€_ - t

1
I
i
9
i

j @$@ ? gg E£ www?r y e.rreev5g ..aaxn ?«ww.. {„w.... ?..?.m ... x ....
g .' § co
4 ' ` (V O
00 00
- - m ._..
a t a ' q
?4 -1
65 -1 J -1 L -i _j -1
L '
V z_ $, o U)
Cl)
3 ?
;, #, ....
$ t a? S
t ? t f ? ? ? g O
F 3
i
s
s Sb E ?
p .amp g ? ? ?„
4 g
f O
t t t 1
3
{
€ j O
x
? 3 4 O
CC) (D 0 co
O O O O O
T T T T T T
1881 ui u01lena13
i
Y
o
m pa
S N
N
------------------
--------------- ---- -
--- ---------------
C
0
0 0
Co
0
° o m
a a ?o
o a'
- -- ---- -------------------- ---- ----- ---------
V
---- ---- ---------------- - -- ---- ---------------
.o.
m
N
d 7
C) N co to
T ? T
C
---- --------------- ---- ---- ---------------
d U a 0
d m
v
---- --------------- ---- ---- --------- i
d
o >,
------------------
w 0 6 m 0
U j o
O c ui r
L) 4)
U
N N
a
' m
a o
m T f
.. 5
o ?
V O r
y C
---- ---- ------ ---
U C N m
Q) w N O
cj 0 to
t17 O
N
a. i 1 1 a' N
---- ---- ---- ----- ---- - -- ---- -----
of (1) fl
O N N to O
Z r O m (N
O
o co
a
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O C. O O O O O O O O O N
p
O m c or.- (O to et M N r co
O O O
UB41 Jaui:J ;uaOJad o
? v at st at 4k 4k ik xt ? ?t ? ? ? ?k ak ?t at 4t at ? at xt ac at ?k ?k
?0
c ?k
c o00000000000000000000000000
V O O? tO NI?c70MN rOMr N to NTrO O O 00 N 00
0-
c c
_ 0 0
(Np MO to r (pNNtf1 V'O coo co" N v N co co O)
O 00 OrNd'tOOr r NMV(00 SON V) to - N OV N
U
O ?
c a o a) a.
tNO, tnM riDNNtO tt 000 00 N N N ? ..mr
t0O? R, C) O N?rN?'(O(O TrNM V co 0 LD M O O
N O O r N
N
C CO N
O Q J a a a ' o a d 4 1 N N N N N Z N N A S S W V i
V o m tea mmm>>>>>>>>>M?a?a °a oa p
fo >+ N m M N N W (? I`Q m l? fi N t` N
CL •'? rn rn rn rn rn 0) 0) 0) U U U U o o O O o N
as m?,.ow?mmccc>j?-?dc m Emm
0 o .--- m m m m E? m rn 2)
a ata N V VZ+ ?mgg0?miaai U) m m :Ei
t o > m> E E Z 2: E
m E m
> > > >

I

1

_ _ _

I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
52
70
Y -
. V -. 1
a7
Y 15
T -
r.
/ ?:! ' 1 1 \ _,\\ $ ,? --•• \ Q?`.'- ; C'`'am 1 m s, F,' \-.\?y\ ?' _ -- 8 1 ...///??F ? ' y 1???
?^. Ii ' `'' ?. : ?.?-_' \ -t. 57•a .oF' - r .C'E
GA nts • /. ` s Aso /?r„ L..?'1? m ra.; I,,.a t HIGN
n_
T vl ?? RgC.K ?. .
LAKE
)s t,
-/
REFERENCE v
SITE
fo 1-..
LOCATION i' A L
MM,
°
601
I ) t
1 / <. -? a ^?"kr,;. _`•? 52 ;'\ as $
%? ?nsxex YL /'„+x j\ EZr Ilk
601 ` 5 GD . F L'f c PD
? ? ?? °? os,0 ?... cw \' z i e .A ? ? ? . ? >p???? ;'-?'. J, ' ' ,.$`" •? ? ^?E ` 5 _ mx. t sa,+vm
r
ar" $JR a.?
' ` PMDP
z 40 Lbpty
152 ti ! f /J ?{ w? a sL• ^i C `r?` 'n'°'s'' e O €I' •'/ ' _ 1
'?*<wso? ' zv. • f °,: ?? ?7?5. ^ __ / :??i^'/ fix, ` p i ?• _ 1` d` p,.. a \?- __ I
Grove 152 -a'
? ;` I ? • ? 1? /I ? RD' WMEP ?? G?dJ''\ ??'? ?a-.3,. C ..y'. \,?`? ?p;EP?i \ f ,L PD r,i y 2 _ `4 ?
S _ \ h at
I? ego 4 \•1 s & .C =.T' y e "}-R g yi l z J ?J,`q \ _ Y •° .. `? .p I -
-• ?. 1 ! ,r-?'1 sEP`r "° --? ` 1 L? .?i ° 4 ? 4 ?y'6jFes ? I' \? - - ? o`j ? 4rn ,ro \\M1I ?.
*? 1 •" 3 `' ?+-i°z< 1 rr?a.ras K' ?q ? _ _ ? 'Si????"?? ? F? ?? 52 _ ? ? aD
85 • r_ i S .. , ?~ 1's"?':FS m 4,'\ ?--?% e ;' _ • ` b"? P .?'` - _ "
J j4y
V I pM1 fwd, i-•,.?.1, ?°:.
U YDDSF ?/f \ , D
?` ^ I cJ ¢Y> 1 ` E ?Y M1MD %
? 1 Y ? '`1 \? l ?? ', I $•??? +((l \?4% ? Go1C NIII D,
_ , ?? 4 y.?s ?! 1 ?? \f/vy ? TDbPS D ?'?I ?g° / ?. AFDDrI
1 , O J W 9J ?5 ` _
AN Co
Y _
j ro ' { P'f'-7' Ica ! ,3y ?ieg '? / ji ??? a Ir
1 ml 0 1 mi. _4_mi. "? % 106 / `a
&'j tc ? -yT` ?1 SI ? zT
/ c
1:144,000
Source: 1997 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.35, 56.
41
Dwn. by. MAF APPENDIX
EcoScience UT to CRANE CREEK Clad by: wGL
Corporation Reference Site Date: Figure
Rowan County North Carolina July 2004 2 B
Raleigh, North Carolina Project: 02-113.34

i

bA
11,15

Ust"
11.E

MS, zo ns cFs
is814t I.? incEr

11Ms : law
1
1
??FICS
? v
? ? 3 Q o
?kN ?I?s
) IMtNa 0.4
pA?tk?U?t 10 (,itA?i? LR?

rJ ?
I_ v
z
0 -A. It
A. z
?? iq.g ?•S 2.1 2.? 'f.S 231 25.6 3.z 1.1 ?,?? ? __

?? ZS,a Il.y
I 2. I 2.1? ?•? Z3? Zo.b? 3. ( ?. Z-? ?. 2
?

Z.?. S
Io.1
2.a
2.?
.?. ?
232 z3. o Z• 9
(.2 (.3 E
lb.0 I•? Z-5 7.?j 315 3?{.?I 3.1 ?,Z 1.3
lo.? 2.0 • 2.6 S 2 ZL3 Zf.6 ? 3.( I.Z I. 3
? ? ZD.S Ib.( ti. 0 2, 6 S. I 2-31 Zs. o ? 3. ( l•?- I. 3
s
o
3- q
9 ??9-2•i z.s-2.1
4.
.
I
l . s., 3 tis 3?. s 3. Z i. w

Dots

04L -)

1
1.3

a?
1 l°I,S i1.1 (.y
0
G`
J

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
97
96
95
c 94
0
w 93
92
91
90
X-Section Riffle OA @ station -25
0 10 20 30 40 . 50 60
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
dimension"s
19.8 x-section area 2.1 dmean
.
9.5 width 12.8 wet 'P ,
2.9 d max 1.6 h `d radi
3.2 bank ht 4.5 wld ratio
I*=0- Wfloed. cone area. -TS- ent ratio
section i `
Riffle
s description:
?? r_ ?' = ka 1 fit of instrument,'
a . ' 1 . tance FS' F-5 FS ; , W fpa -s. el Mann g.s
+
' ft) (ftl° vation fr111= t ti ;. ' a

i
96.4 .51 7
94.18 93.25 93.62
.. 93.62 -
92.83
90.47
90.43
90.39
90.54
90.66
a
70 80 90 100
90.87 23'1
91.5
92.68
93.81
93.78
93.6
93.53
93.66
93.66
1
h0r6ufic .... ... r' :. ,: .-,_
0.0 velocity ft/sec
0.0 discharge) rate, Q (cfs)
0.00 shear stress Ibs/ft 5
0.00 shear'veloci ft/sec
0.000 unit stream, power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u'
9 9 threshold rain size mm
dreg -from., channel -mate
0 measured D84 mm
0.0 relative roughness 0.0 frig. factor-
0.000 'Mannin 's n from channel, materiel.

X-Section Riffle 08 @ station 8.
97
96
95
c 94
0
> 93
a?
W
92
91
90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
t
eotion:
Riffle
' S '=Z
descnptio
94.34 93.36 93.87
94.06
93.36
93.16
92.56
90.82
90.77
90.78
oTfg'z?` 777-7
25.0 x-section area 2.1 d mean
11.9 width 14.8 wet P
2.6 d max_ 1.7 h yd radi
3.1 bank.ht 5.6 WM ratio
t3 A W flood ronedarea Q A ent_ratio
90.82 i 31
91.15 hytlra is
92.02 0.0
93.87 0.0
93.81 0.00
93.79 0.00
93.77 0

LL
.
O--
0

velocity; (iUsec)
shear velocity tVsec
unit stream power (lbs/ sec)
Froude number'
check frorh channel; material
0 measured D84 (mm)
0.0
I relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor,
0.000 Manning's n from channel, material
'

97
96
95
c 94
0
> 93
d
W
92
91
90
X-Section Riffle 3 @ station 219

0 20 40 60 80
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
100 120 140
section:
Riffle
s i ydescnpfiol;
heta of instrument' M- M., F-M
J
¦
J
¦
J
¦
J
J
¦
J
¦
J
¦
J
¦
J
vzu? ,.?ua c
96.37
94.62 93.34 93.72
94.19
93.77
94
94.17
93.76
92.36
91.87
dimsions
20.5 x-section area< 2.0 d mean
10.1 width ' 13.1 wet P
2.5 d'max 1.6 hyd radi '
2.9 bank ht 5.0 wed ratio
'h5Q.Q W flood prone,?area 14:9- ent ratio
91.07 'L 'L,0
90.93 hydraulics
90.85 0.0
90.89 0.0
91.09 0.00
91.36 0.00
93.72 0.000
93.88 0.00
94.18 0.0
94.1 9 A
94.09
94.41
-L5. V ..
velocit IUsec
discharge rate, Q cfs
shear stress dbs/ft s
shear velocity fUsec
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
Froude number
friction-factor u/u`
threshold' rain size mm)
check from-channel material
0 measured D84' nlm)
0.0 relative roughness 0.0 fric. factor,
0.000 Mannin 's n from channel material

99
98
97
96
0 95
94
W 93
92
91
90
X-Section Riffle 7 @ station 399

- - -

0 20 40
60 80 100
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
i r ...'r section: XrSection Riff le 7,
Riffle
K* descripti
? :'`??fioinht ntrinctrmm?nt /ftl" 1 1
J
¦
J
¦
J
¦
J
J
¦
J
¦
J
¦
J
¦
J
¦
J
98.62 1 ;
95.78 93.73 94.34
95.1
d )on
?-
19.3 x-section area 1.9 d mean
10.0 width ' 12.5 wet P
2.5 d'max 1.5 h yd radi
3.1 bank ht 5.2 w/d ratio
W_fiood-. rone area 14- enLratio.
120 140 160
91.22
91.34 ra fics`
91.42 0.0 veloci ft/sec
92.09 0.0 dischar a rate. Q (cfsl
94.67
94.27
93.85
92.79
92.38
91.23
93.25 0.00 shear str
94.34 0.00 shear ve
94.61 0.000 unit streE
94.8 0.00 Froude?n
94.76 0.0
L friction fa
94.77 9.4 thresholc
94.7
94.74
,Illy.,-1-1 _
m power (lbs/ft/sec)
unber
:tor a/u'
grain size (mfn),-
checkirom`charinl material
0 measured D84 mm)
0.0
I relative rou hness 0.0 fric. factor
0.000 Manning's rrfrom channel material
t
X-Section Pool 3 @ station 162.5
98
97
96
95
c
-2 94
M 93
92
91
90
0 20 40 60 80 100
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
secYian:
Pool
96.95
91.82
91.4
90.93
90.66
90.54
91.1
2131--
!
,
41
41 4 ,... ; 6 37.,_
7.. 43 .? : ?_ 601......;
°
. X48
1
1
- ., 595
1-
.
0
1
1:
1 6
13..,
7 98
?
6.16
127 ?' 631 :.
' 144 6.44.E
120
140
160
:vpa , c i .Nranr?g s?
dtmensis
20.6 x=section area 1.8 d mean
11.7 width 13.9 ,, wet?P
2.8 d nax 1.5 h?d redi
3.3 bank ht 6-.7 w/d=ratio
8 9 W fluud< rune area &8 ent ratio
?r:?ulics
04 velocity (f-Usec)
A 0 discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00 shear stress 1bs/ft s•
0.00 shear velocity ' ft/sec
8:800 unit stream over Ibs/ft/sec
8.-88 Froude number
friction: factor u/u`
843 threshold rain size mm
&eck_from channel,material'..
4-2 measured D84' mm}
46-2 relative roughness 42:3 fric. factor.
8:800 Mannin 's n from channel material
t
t
99
98
97
96
z
a 95
i 94
w 93
92
91
90
X-Section Pool 8 @ station 445
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
'sections
Pool
description:
c
t t
vation4 .b ull', ??P of ank t) xt1
98.41
95.65 94.05 95.07
94.54
J
J
J
J
J
dimension
19.5 x-section area 1.9 d mean
10.5 width; 12.9 wret P
3.0 d max ? 1.5 h yd radi
4.0 bank ht w/d ratio
8.9 W flood prone area 9 A ent ratio-JI
91.4
94.05
93.72
92.86
91.25
91.13
91.09
91.73
92.3
92.77
94.09
95.07
95.12
94.99
94.94
94.74
hydra ics
&8 velocity, ft/sec
A A discharge rate,; Q cfs
0.00 shear, stress Ibs/ft s
0.00 shear velocity ft/sec
A.0A9 unit stream power (Ibs/ft/sec)
A.9A Froude number
A 9 friction factor u/u"
&0 'threshold grain size (mm)
11check from`channel;`material

X
.. A _ / .. 4, -f-A.
\-Xrefcrcnnn\r--f rlnn Q- 1n ')nn') 1A•AF•FC.
11 ?
1 Z7
Poo 1 3
T

Y E
L
Fo -W
M (n 4)
o
L
Z 0a

l1

. ? ? .i.,. ••? ? .,..?. w.x„a .,.w« ..,. 4?+. »f.,... ,ad,,.,> ?.> ?.d» ,,,. ..,xG ? x, ...... m . _.. .. ..
a
. ? ? ? «m?w .x vn:m§3 i Pmww www ?? «3.aax e>?Sa, .x» .wwaFL. ew:a{? ew? m»e,».4 .. ?». -.?:u 'ga. -.g.,. .. fit. ,.
2' R ? 8 FF'9 ? ? k ? E S {
s >
fill,
i?
x ?
E
3 Y p •µ? ? F ??w ge?»?.w.. xe?..w ..«? ?...,F >?.. x<, ?.. ... E ,
? ?-.,.. ? F .mSGm •x wwrw a?vrna« xtrwn,:u ?,..x. 3_ ... .
s # $ >
+- -4€ 1' -~+. . M , ?-
O E
3
f e ?
x .
4, 4
5 ? a % •Ew
t $ A ? 3 Qt £ ?' :
T -7'
gq ?r ? ?r ate' > .wx$i eww Y, xx? a? w.O?rwwm ? timMew >fiux» +n» «..- nsw. rc Ee wmr?n .n>? s gv+mai
YB f 3 $ _ ? § g v 3 2 ._ ? E
E gg3 gg ry V F '
? ? ? tl $ ? S g S $ ? ? g 3

0
0
M
O
O
It
O
0
co
O
O
N
0
0
T
O
? OO) ? 00
Jaal ui uoijena13
(D
0
16
U)

Weighted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle:
Percent Pool: 50 Percent Run:
50 Percent Glide: 0
0 Pebble Count,
i
l
M
t e mm
Size Ran Total # ---
er
a
a g
iltl
la 062
0 0 20
0 # --
c
y
s . .
vent fine sand 0.062 0.13 7.0 # ---
f
n
sand 13 0.25
0 4.0 # Note: Dan Nicholas Weighted
i
e
medium sand .
0.25 0.5 5.0 #
coarse sand 0.5 1 6.0 # Pebble Count,
°-°
very coarse sand 1 2 9.0 # 100%
l 2 4 0
8 # -
very fine grave . 90%
fine gravel 4 6 9.0
fine gravel 6 8 8.0 # 80%
ii
mecium gravel 8 11 7.0 # 70% -
mecium gravel 11 16 7.0 #

coarse gravel
16 22
2.0
# fi0%
;
coarse gravel 22 32 2.0 # t 50% 'I
very coarse gravel 32 45 3.0 # F-
4 _ r
very coarse ravel 45 64 2.0 4
# -
40%
small cobble 64 90 1.0 # u- 30%
medium cobble 90 128 0.0 #
large cobble 128 180 0.0 #
t 20%
20
very large cobble 180 256 0.0 # a 10% i
small boulder 256 362 0.0 # 0% y1j
small boulder 362 512 0.0 # 1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0 01 0
medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 # .
large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 # Particle Size (mm) Cumulative Percent Percent Item Riffle Pool ----Run -p-Glide
e boulder
lar
er 2048 4096 0.0 #
g
v
y
bedrock 0.0 # Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
l bbl boulder bedrock
hted Count:
i
W 100 D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand grave e
co
Tru
C g
e
e Total Particle Count: 100 #N/A 0.44 1.9 12 36 20% 31 % 48% 1 % 0% 0%

M M = r M A M M M Wl M M Ili M M M M M M
? f ?.
i •
DRAINAGE BASIN =?.
i 2.4 ML
i i
I
?? CAMP BRANCH REFERENCE
P.-
%
c
• Z I
%
N

W E .A

C! A-
^y.

'
r

L- -znrd

.• (' 'Aar 41111
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ti
0 2000 k. 4000 k.
1:24,000
Source: Mapte?h, Inc.0 2001
I L- 1
Dwn. by.
MAF APPENDIX
FE,F ccScielic e Camp Branch Ckdby WGL
orporation Reference Site Date: Figure
Y 2004 2C
Anson County, North Carolina Jul
eigh, North Carolina Project
02-113.34

M M M M M M M M M M M i M M M M M = M
Bishop Property Refence Dimension: Camp Branch Area
X-sect DA(mi) A,,R(ft) AeX;st;n (ft) Wb,f (ft) Dave (ft) Dmax (ft) W/D Ratio FPA Entrench LBH (ft) BHR Stream Type
Cam Branch Reach 1 (Upstream of H eadcut
1 2
4 38.7 38.7 21.3 1.8 2.7 11.8 180 8.5 2.7 1

5
'
36
44.1
16.5
2.2
2.6
7.5
110
6.6
3.1
1.2 E
Riffles average 2.4 37.4 41.4 18.9 2.0 2.7 9.7 145.0 7.6 2.9 1.1
min 2.4 36.0 38.7 16.5 1.8 2.6 7.5 110.0 6.6 2.7 1.0
max 2.4 38.7 44.1 21.3 2.2 2.7 11.8 180.0 8.5 3.1 1.2
Pools 2 2.4 55.8 55.8 23.6 2.4 4.3 --- --- --- 4.3 1 ---
M M M M M M w w M M = M M M M M M M
Cross-section 1: riffle, Camp Branch
21)
20)
a
W
o 203
•a
m
W
207
203
0

P 2 11 6
j

I i

-

A

xis

ng 1
i
I
i
Drainage Area = 2.4 mi2
I

e . z t?? lad 38
Wbkf = 21.3 ft

Dbkf = 1.8 ft
Dmax=2.7ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = 11.8
5
ENT=8
.
r ,; t•;? LBH = 2.7 ft
BHR = 1.0
Stream Type = E

a
Z
j
lg
.,k?? tf ?j`'. ?
,r
?4. t .C.??1T`.Sk ?te?.y ?,?? ig ' ? ? ,
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Horizontal Distance (feet)

Cross-section 2: pool, Camp Branch
210
209
208
4) 207
c
O
R
206
W
20E
204
203
0
exist na
ck • b nk II
slop e e ei
j
I 1 a nd

4 i
_
qq 1
++({? ??
,
_;: ?•'"
x
A.

i
?1Icts se'I 33 1n ..?__
Drainage Area ?= 2.4 mi2
Wbkf 23.6 ft
Dbkf=2.4ft
Dmax = 4.3 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = NA
FPA = NA
ENT = NA
LBH = 4.3 ft
BHR = 1.0
Stream Type = NA
5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (feet)
30 35 40 45

lll? r w w w r r r w w r w r r l? r i
Cross-section 5: riffle, Camp Branch
212
211
210
209
m
O 208
0
d
W 207
206
205
204 -
0

- ------ ---- - ---- -
----
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-- P
--
--
--
-
--
-
--
-- - ---- - ---- - ---- - - -- - ----
I ,
A
xlsr
ns

I 1 -. -. -. ._. _. ._. _. .-.
?,
Drainage Area = 2.4 mil
a
l,kf,
ba
kf
II
I
e ev ti n s d
AexiSrinG = 44.1 ft2
-
o
fi
Id
in
ica

{{ ar ? 1 •t +
Y._ ?r
1Y R
t
16.5 ft
Wbkf
2 ft
Dbkf = 2 f'..
d v
?'
+ K r' , Fx ?irr,
p Z , i
.'4 s?
. g?
{
2
t Y
Dmax =2.6 ft

I
`'"
Wbkf/Dbkf = 7.5 5•
?
ENT=6.6 t1?
LBH=3.1ft

BHR = 1.2 71.
d?v t a a r `"
Stream Type = E ;?.
•
I
I -J •..
I I I
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90
100
Horizontal Distance (feet)

100 1
1.
w

Camp Branch Reference Reach
M M M M M M M M i M M M M M M I' M M M
Camp Branch Referecne Reach Pattern

Cam Branch
pool to pool
spacing
meander
length

beltwidth I
radius of
curv

bkf width pool to
pool/bkf
width
meander/ bkf
width
beltwidth/
bwidth
rad/bkf
width
Ref Reach Median 74 133 43 41 19.6 3.8 6.8 2.2 2.1
Ran a low 45 66 30 17 2.3 3.4 1.5 0.9
Range high 145 240 97 200 7.4 12.2 4.9 10.2
Pattern: Camp Branch
Reference Reach and Reach 2 Camp Branch
Upstream to Ford
Pool to pool
spacing
(feet)
Meander
Length (feet)
Beltwidth
(feet) Radius of
curv
(feet)
45 66 30 16.7
46 85 31 23.4
50 88 33 27.1
51 89 34 27.1
53 92 34 28.1
55 95 35 28.6
56 101 36 29.2
58 102 38 29.7
61 103 39 29.7
62 112 40 32.3
64 116 42 32.8
65 123 43 36.5
73 126 46 40.6
73 133 46 40.6
75 135 46 50.0
79 137 52 53.3
79 143 52 53.3
79 147 57 100.0
79 155 63 106.7
89 159 68 116.7
95 172 89 120.0
112 175 97 133.3
118 182 133.3
120 200 133.3
122 209 200.0
122 237
140 240
145
Median 74 133 42.5 40.6
Range 45-145 66-240 30-97 17-200

y C
t0 (O (O (O (O tp W W N OLD V V V V V_ V_ V O) N N N m m N N N N N N N W N N N A A? A A P A P A A A A W W m W? p W W I p W ?Np N Np?? A N N_ N' pp-??? ?'{? p -? --? O? p? sj °? Z jn
9 NNmN N°J (W.? N a NNN?O? aOO Am W W O N NCNO Nm JN? W W AO°iN N?NmN0 Am 000?(?JO? A l J
N N A(NJ?m?O A? W ON(°J? A N W ANANNNN W A W -' m O A
N N N N N (T N A O
O O n co
06
rt
? L1
? na O? c ?
3 -i Q) W ti m H W ti co ti co co -1 co -1 co -4 CO co co -
a 31 7J 7J 9 m m 7J 7] 7J JJ 7J 70 a S7 N ?] 7] p 77 71 w 9 a N 31 9 31 d < n A 7
J N' ? .? ° O O Q Q Q tD <p N N J J N N N N A A W W N G?? O 6 'D
C
e0i 1P ° c n ? O
c v N o N
•• N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ppN p Np N N N N N N N N N N N p Np N N p Np Npp p Np N N p Np p Np N p N N N N p Np N N N N N p N p N N N N N N N? »' y-
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A 0A O O O g m 0 0 0 0 OA O g 0 0 0 0 0 A V°i V°i m A N °N N COn N (°J A A N? O°i O°i ON m (°T C°n (°Ii O°i N A A m O> N N A m N N m m? T m N m m °V (?(?? m O> O? O O O O m m ? W ? {lo
A
O W J N AO VAV AANN A m °J (NIi A O) A N .0 0 (P.1 A A °J tp N J J N N N N+ m N m f°J m tD (JJ (WSi m N O? N A m m (N.J A fWl? O W W (VO N V L J N (WJ N tPT ONi ?°O N V O N O A m N m W
°
O
? J
m °
c
= x
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M G 0^
3 3 °i A A P p A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O 0 0 m m m m m O O m m m m O p m 0 p O m m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0? H 7 0
K (D (O (O ?O tp O O O O O N A N (.? N N N N N N Ut N N N J J J J J V J J J. 000' 000' 000 O 000' 000' 000 W W W W W OON?' OOA?1 A A A A OOA?) 0000 ......
OOW?I O O O P P A A A A P A P P A N N J pC y
O A N N. ' N N N N O O P A N N Q? N J J N J W W W W W J J N O N W W W W W W N N V N N W W Ol J N N O? O N W A N N N Q? N N N N N W t0 O O O ? C J m
y ? N
O "
y a
0
o 0 A y
O y Y
O
9 m S
3 1 y
m y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 7
°So 0 0 0 o 8 s o 8 °
amJ
J o N N N cJ,, g ? o rn m m ? ? m udi ?
0 o A
°o
0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O N L A
0 S S o
0 8 0 8 ?
f.? O A W N N O W N N O 8 ?p
C
< A
A y
m 3
a?

Camp Branch Reference Reach
208 37
207. )O
206.00 -
w 205.00 -
204.00 -
I
i
203. C 0
202.CC
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
feet
M ! M M M M i M M M M M M M M M i i
Weighted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run:
p??:??
Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide:
Pebble Count,
Ma-erial Size Range (mm) Total # ---
silt/clay 0 0.062 14.0 #
ver/ fire sand 062 0.13
0 0.0 # ---
fine sand .
0.13 0.25 0.0 # Note: Cam Branch Reference Reach (Reach 1)
medium sand 0.25 0.5 0.0 #
coarse sand 0.5 1 7.0 # Pebble Count, --
very coarse sand 1 2 1.0 # 100%
very fine gravel 2 4 10.0 # 90% - - - -
fine gravel 4 6 8.0 #
fine gravel 6 8 16.0 # 80%
medium gravel 8 11 18.0 # 70% - -- - - - -
mec iurr gravel 11 16 9.0 #
coarse gravel 16 22 8.0 # 60% -
coarse gravel 22 32 5.0 # 4 5
i;

1
_
-- -
- -
- -
very coarse gravel 32 45 1.0 # F- _
very coarse ravel 45 64 2.0 # 40%
c
small cobble 64 90 1.0 # 30%
T 1- - - - -- -
med um cobble 90 128 0.0 #
20%
large cobble 128 180 0.0 #
very large cobble
180 256
0.0
#
a 10%
-vim-
- -
small coulder 256 362 0.0
small boulder 362 512 0.0 #
1000 10000
1 1 10 100
01 0
0
medium noulder 512 1024 0.0 # -
.
.
large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 # Particle Size (mm) ?- Cumulative Percent Percent Item - Riffle -Pool-- Run -Glidei
very large Boulder 2048 4096 0.0 #
bedrock 0.0 # Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
Weighted Count: 100 D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock
Tru e Total Particle Count: 100 0.610 4.66 7.2 17 30 14% 8% 77% 1% 0% 0%
APPENDIX E
CATENA GROUP FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY
The
Catena
,Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Bishop Property Stream Restoration Mitigation Site
Anson County
North Carolina
Prepared For:
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Prepared By:
The Catena Group, Inc.
Hillsborough, North Carolina
January 24, 2004
U
Michael G. Wood
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has contracted
EcoScience Corporation to evaluate the Bishop Property (Bishop Site) for its potential as a
mitigation site. The Bishop Site is in the Rocky River Subbasin of the Yadkin/Pee Dee River
Basin in Anson County (Figure 1). The proposed mitigation on this property will include the
restoration of an estimated total of 7600 linear feet of stream on Camp Branch, an Unnamed
Tributary (UT) to Camp Branch, Dulla Thoroughfare, and UT to Dulla Throughfare.
Although no restoration is planned for the mainstem of the Rocky River, there is potential for
its waters to be impacted as a result of restoration efforts planned for Dulla Throughfare just
above where it joins with the mainstem Rocky River. The federally endangered Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is known to occur in the Rocky River Subbasin of the
Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basin and is listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as occurring in
Anson County, thus The Catena Group, Inc. was retained by EcoScience Corporation to
conduct surveys for this species.
WATERS IMPACTED: Camp Branch, UT to Camp Branch, Dulla Thoroughfare,
UT to Dulla Thoroughfare, and Rocky River
Camp Branch originates at the westernmost portion of the property, approximately
1.5 river miles (RM) from its confluence with Rocky River. The upstream portion of Camp
Branch (the section upstream of its confluence with UT Camp Branch) meanders through a
wooded area with a 1-2 meter (3-6.5 foot) wide channel and 1-3 meter (3.5-10 feet) high
moderately eroded clay banks. The substrate in this portion of the stream was a sand-cobble
mix.
The confluence with the UT is near the farm road that used to cross Camp Branch.
The road crossing has been removed, however a beaver dam has been recently constructed
that has ponded approximately 600 feet of channel. From below the beaver dam downstream
to the Rocky River, the channel widens to an average of 6 meters (19.7 feet) and the banks
become deeply incised, up to 7 meters (23 feet) high in some places. The sand-cobble
substrate includes large areas of bedrock. The riparian corridor in this section is very narrow,
flanked on both sides with active crop fields. Stream flow ranged from shallow riffles to
slow moving runs with beaver activity observed throughout the reach.
UT to Camp Branch originates approximately 1200 meters upstream of its
confluence with Camp Branch. This shallow stream meanders through a wooded lot for
about 600 meters before entering a small impoundment. UT to Camp Branch exits the pond
to the northeast where it has been ditched through its remaining length before converging
with Camp Branch. Within the area surveyed, the UT ranges from 0.5-1.0 meters (2-3.5 feet)
in width.
' Dulla Thoroughfare and UT to Dulla Thoroughfare occur in the southeastern
portion of the tract with the UT connecting Dulla to the Rocky River. Cursory habitat
examinations revealed the streams to be heavily degraded and often ditched through out the
' majority of the property. Due to these factors and their relatively small size, it was
determined that they contained no appropriate habitat for freshwater mussels.
' TCG- Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Bishop Tract Mitigation Site, Anson County, NC

The
y Catena
,. Group
Bishop Property Mitigation Site
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Locations
Anson County, North Carolina
Date:
January 2005
Scale:
As Shown
lob No.: 3143
1
TCG- Freshwater Mussel Surveys 2
Bishop Tract Mitigation Site, Anson County, NC
Rocky River originates in Cabarrus County over 30 RM to the northwest of the
Bishop Property. It flows east, forming the southern border of Stanley County until it joins
the Pee-Dee River just downstream of the survey area. Within the surveyed reach, the Rocky
River was approximately 80 meters (260 feet) wide with a maximum depth of approximately
7 feet. Substrate ranged from compact gravel-cobble in the main channel to silty clay along
the banks. River banks were approximately 3 meters (10 feet) high and often vertical. A
moderate amount of windthrow and the resulting woody debris was apparent along the rivers
edge. There was a narrow wooded buffer separating the large tracts of surrounding
agricultural land from the Rocky River within the surveyed reach.

SPECIES DESCRIPTION
CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER (Lasmigona decorata) Lea 1852
Status: Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Listed: July-24-1992
Characteristics
The Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), originally described as Unio
decoratus by (Lea 1852), synonymized with Lasmigona subviridis Conrad, (Johnson 1970),
and later separated as a distinct species (Clarke 1985), is a federally Endangered freshwater
mussel, historically known from several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee River
systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee, Savannah and possibly the Saluda River systems
in South Carolina.
The Carolina heelsplitter is characterized as having an ovate, trapezoid-shaped,
unsculptured shell. The outer surface of the shell ranges from greenish brown to dark brown
in color, with younger specimens often having faint greenish brown or black rays. The shell's
nacre is often pearly white to bluish white, grading to orange in the area of the umbo (Keferl
1991). The hinge teeth are well developed and heavy and the beak sculpture is double looped
(Keferl and Shelly 1988). Morphologically, the shell of the Carolina heelsplitter is very
similar to the shell of the green floater (Clarke 1985), with the exception of a much larger
size and thickness in L. decorata (Keferl and Shelly 1988).
Prior to collections in 1987 and 1990 by Keferl (1991), L. decorata had not been
collected in the 20th century and was known only from shell characteristics. Because of its
rarity, very little information of this species biology, life history, and habitat requirements
was known. Feeding strategy and reproductive cycle of the Carolina heelsplitter have not
been documented, but are likely similar to other native freshwater mussels (USFWS 1996).
The feeding processes of freshwater mussels are specialized for the removal
(filtering) of suspended microscopic food particles from the water column (Pennak 1989).
Documented food sources for freshwater mussels include detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton
and zooplankton (USFWS 1996).
TCG- Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Bishop Tract Mitigation Site, Anson County, NC

Freshwater mussels have complex reproductive cycles, which include a larval stage
(glochidium) that is an obligatory parasite on a fish (Pennak 1989). The glochidia develop
into juvenile mussels and detach from the "fish host" and sink to the stream bottom where
they continue to develop, provided suitable substrate and water conditions are available
(USFWS 1996). Many species of naiades require a particular species of fish to serve as the
host. The host species(s) for the Carolina heelsplitter is unknown (USFWS 1996).
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Currently the Carolina heelsplitter has a very fragmented, relict distribution. Until
recently, it was known to be surviving in only six streams and one small river (USFWS
1996):
1. Waxhaw Creek (Catawba River system) in Union County, North Carolina
2. Goose Creek (Pee Dee River system) in Union County, North Carolina
3. Lynches River (Pee Dee River system), in Chesterfield, Lancaster and Kershaw Counties,
South Carolina
4. Flat Creek, a tributary to the Lynches River in Lancaster County, South Carolina
5. Turkey Creek (Savannah River system) in Edgefield County, South Carolina
6. Mountain Creek (tributary to Turkey Creek) in Edgefield County, South Carolina
7. Beaverdam Creek (tributary to Turkey Creek) in Edgefield County, South Carolina
In the summer of 2004, a population of this species was discovered in Little Fishing
Creek (Catawba River system) in Chester County, South Carolina (personal observations).
Additionally, a range extension of the Waxhaw Creek population was documented into
Lancaster County, South Carolina (John Alderman, personal Communication 2004).
Habitat for this species has been reported from small to large streams and rivers as
well as ponds. These ponds are believed to be millponds on some of the smaller streams
within the species' historic range (Keferl 1991). Most individuals have been found along
well-shaded streambanks with mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel substrates. The stability
of stream banks appears to be very important to this species ((Keferl 1991).
Threats to Species
The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of each of the surviving
populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event
or activity (USFWS 1996). The cumulative effects of several factors, including
sedimentation, point and non-point discharge, and stream modification (impoundments,
channelization, etc.) has contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range
(USFWS 1996).
Siltation resulting from improper sedimentation control of various land usages,
including agricultural, forestry, and developmental activities, has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has been
documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and
TCG- Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Bishop Tract Mitigation Site, Anson County, NC
water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and by direct smothering of
mussels (Ellis 1936), (Markings and Bills 1979)). Sediment accumulations of less than 1
inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936).

Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity
and abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau, Neves et al. 1988). Goudreau, Neves et al. (1988)
found that recovery of mussel populations might not occur for up to two miles below points
of chlorinated sewage effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented
(USFWS 1992 a), Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic
habitats, which results in changes with aquatic community composition. Muscle Shoals on
the Tennessee River in northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the
world, is now at the bottom of Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS
1992 b). Large portions of all of the river basins within the Carolina heelsplitter's range have
been impounded and this is believed to be a major factor contributing to the species decline
(USFWS 1996).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) and
zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to
native freshwater mussels. The Asiatic clam is now established in most of the major river
systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973); including those streams still
supporting surviving populations of the Carolina heelsplitter (USFWS 1996). Concern has
been raised over competitive interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and
native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987), (Alderman 1995).
The zebra mussel is not known from any waterbodies supporting the Carolina heelsplitter
(USFWS 1996).
SURVEY EFFORTS
Pre Survey Investigation
Prior to conducting in-stream surveys, a review of previous surveys that had taken
place in the project area was conducted. Sources consulted include the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) systematic inventory (database) of rare plant and animal
species and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). While there
were no records within one mile of the areas to be impacted, there is a historical record of the
Carolina heelsplitter from the mainstem of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River near Leak Island,
approximately 3 miles downstream from the Bishop Tract.
Mussel Surveys
t Michael Wood, Shay Garriock, Kate Montieth, and Sharon Snider of The Catena
Group investigated the Bishop Tract Stream Restoration site on January 3, 2005. Where
appropriate mussel habitat was present, surveys were conducted using the standard USFWS
t recommendations for aquatic species of 100 meters upstream of the most upstream point of
impact to 400 meters downstream of the most downstream point of impact.
' TCG- Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Bishop Tract Mitigation Site, Anson County, NC

Methodology and Results
Visual surveys were conducted using batiscopes and tactile methods in each stream
except the mainstem Rocky River, which required SCUBA surveys. Searches for relic shells
were also conducted concurrently with in-stream surveys. No freshwater mussels were found
during the 12 person hours spent surveying the Bishop property. The specific results of each
survey reach (Figure 1) are detailed below.
Camp Branch:
Deeply incised throughout most of the survey reach, especially in its lower portion,
Camp Branch was likely heavily impacted by the past and current agricultural practices in its
watershed. Additionally, the lower portions are heavily impacted by beaver activity. Within
the upper surveyed portion (above its UT confluence) one Pysella sp. snail was found in
Camp Branch. Below the UT confluence, one shell of the introduced Asian clam (Corbicula
fluminea) was found. No freshwater mussels were located in the surveyed reach of Camp
Branch.
UT Camp Branch:
Due to its predominantly wooded surroundings, this UT to Camp Branch remains
relatively stable in its upper reach. Below the man made impoundment, however, the stream
is ditched. Throughout the surveyed area the UT was very small, rarely over 3 feet in width
making freshwater mussel habitat marginal. No freshwater mussels, snails, or the Asian clam
were found in this UT.
Dulla Thoroughfare and UT to Dulla Thoroughfare:
The approximately 100 meters of the Dulla Thoroughfare connection to the mainstem
Rocky River surveyed was an agricultural ditch characterized by unconsolidated sand, silt
and mud substrate. No mollusks were observed here and freshwater mussel habitat was not
appropriate. Cursory habitat examinations in several other locations revealed the stream to
be degraded and often ditched, especially in the reaches intended for restoration. Due to
these factors and the relatively small size of the streams, especially in the UT, it was
determined that Dulla Thoroughfare and its UT contained no appropriate habitat for
freshwater mussels.
Rocky River:
The proposed restoration efforts in Dulla Thoroughfare extend to its confluence with
the mainstem Rocky River, thus the Rocky River was surveyed approximately 400 meters
downstream of this confluence. A short reach above the confluence was also surveyed for
habitat comparison. A variety of appropriate mussel habitats persists in this reach of the
Rocky River and represents the best potential habitat that may be impacted as a result of the
restoration efforts. Despite this fact and the acceptable survey conditions, no freshwater
mussels were found in this reach. The only freshwater mollusk located was the Asian clam
(Corbicula fluminea), which was common.
TCG- Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Bishop Tract Mitigation Site, Anson County, NC
I

1

11
r
DISCUSSION
The streams within the Bishop tract proposed for restoration efforts are, for the most
part, not appropriate habitat for freshwater mussels. This is due to their generally degraded,
altered states resulting from the surrounding agricultural land use. Within the UT to Camp
Branch and UT Dulla Thoroughfare, their small size seems to be the main factor limiting
appropriate mussel habitat. The Rocky River represents the best freshwater mussel habitat
within the vicinity of the Bishop tract, however, no mussels were found during the survey. It
is possible that a remnant population of freshwater mussels exists downstream of the project
area in the Rocky River as mussel populations within the mainstem of the Rocky River have
been documented as recently as 2004. However, due to the sensitive nature of the Carolina
heelsplitter, it is very unlikely that it is part of the freshwater mussel fauna potentially present
in the Rocky River downstream of the Bishop Tract. It is therefore anticipated that the
proposed stream mitigation within the Bishop Tract is "Not Likely To Adversely Effect"
the Carolina heelsplitter.
REFERENCES
Alderman, J. M. (1995). Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community.
Unpublished report presented at the UMRCC s r=osium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL,
UMRCC.
Clarke, A. H. (1985). The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae , Part II:
Lasmigona and Simpsonaias.
Ellis, M. M. (1936). "Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments." Ecolo 17:29-42.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell (1973). "Range extensions of Corbicula mandensis
(Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States." Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, et al. (1988). Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents on
Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128.
' Keferl, E. P. (1991). "A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). A
freshwater mussel endemic to the Carolinas." Unpublished report to US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Keferl, E. P. and R. M. Shelly (1988). The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, Lasmigona decorata, and the Carolina elktoe, Alasmidonta robusta,
Unpublished Report to the U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 47.
' Lea, I. (1852). "Description of a new species of the family Unionidae." Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society 10: 253-294.
TCG- Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Bishop Tract Mitigation Site, Anson County, NC
7
Markings, L. L. and T. D. Bills (1979). Acute Effects of Silt and Sand Sedimentation on
Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC Symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve
Mollusks, Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Neves, R. J. (1993). A State of the Unionids Address. UMRCC sMposium on the
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. C. K.S., A. C. Buchanan and
L. M. Kooch. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC. Proceedings in the UMRCC symposium
on the Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels: 1-10.
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak (1987). "Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels
(Bivalva: Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia." American Malacolo tgcal
Bulletin 1(5): 1-7.
Pennak, R. W. (1989). Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca.
New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
USFWS (1992 a). Special report on the status of freshwater mussels.
USFWS (1992 b). Endangered and Threatened species of the southeast United States (The
Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of Endangered Species, Southeast
Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
USFWS (1996). Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan,
Atlanta, GA: 47.
TCG- Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Bishop Tract Mitigation Site, Anson County, NC

C

APPENDIX F
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
' Wilmington District
Action ID: 200430199 County: Anson
' Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property Owner: NCDOT Authorized Agent: EcoScience Corporation
Address: Gregory J. Thorpe, Project Attn: W. Grant Lewis
Development and Environmental Analysis Address: 1101 Haynes Street
1548 Mail Service Center Suite 101, Raleigh, NC 27604
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Telephone:[phone]
Telephone: [phone]
Size and Location of Property (waterbodY, Highway name/number, town etc.):
' Bishop Property Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Approximately 930-acre parcel adjacent to
the Rocky River off Carpenter Road north of Ansonville in the Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basin
' Basis for Determination: Delineation Maps and GPS surveys dated January 27, 2004 with
accompanying Wetland Data Forms and Stream Assessment Worksheets from August and
September 2003 identifying hydric soil, wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, stream flow, an
' ordinary high waterline and surface hydrologic connections to the Yadkin/Pee Dee River System.
Indicate Which of the Following apply:
' 0 The wetlands and surface waters on this project have been delineated and the limits of the Corps jurisdiction have
been explained to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
Placement of dredged or fill material in streams and wetlands on this property without a
Department of the Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1311). A permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing
high ground. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact
Steven W. Lund at 828-271-7980 x 223.
' Project Manager Signature
Date: January 13, 2004
Date: January 13, 2009
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS FORM.

1

1

1
1

n
u

1

m
M -4
P

< ? c» c-) g m z z
3 C) u? ox o x
M O rr7 cn K C r -i
'c D K N Z O Z Z Co C7

:f
m
D
o G7 > S
30 =oK nZ, 0 5 Z
z oz ?r
O m -4
m m
D m
r
cn
N? Z
V)
D
S r
O
C O
00
Z C) C G
> Z D
?O m N r O

x T m
D z
-?
N
Z
WO n
S m
p
(n
N ?
ao m
K
N s o ? n

)
° '
m
zy

;u
O
z
?
l

o

? ?

n ll1J

O
00
m
o
0
D ?
X Z? m 0 m I i
o - m Z
z
- ?O
?
w
m ?.
° O
W 00 N
O D ?
rf? f
o o
W p O
A