Phase IV Local Watershed Assessment for the South Hominy Creek ...

Phase IV Local Watershed Assessment for the South Hominy Creek Watershed Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Prepared for: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program

Prepared by:

March 2007

Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………. 1 Methods ………………………………………………………………………………... 1 Results and Conclusions ……………………………………………………………….. 5

Priority 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas Project Site Name ____ South Hominy Creek #2………………………………………………………. 10 Sam's Branch #1……………………………………………………………..... 17 Glady Fork #2……………………………………………………………….... 25 UT to Beaverdam Creek…………………………….………………………… 33 UT to Curtis Creek #1……………………………………………….………… 40 South Hominy Creek #4…………………………….………………………… 46 South Hominy Creek #3…………………………….………………………… 49 UT to South Hominy #6…………………………….………………………… 55 UT to South Hominy #3……………………………………………………… 58 Beaverdam Creek #1………………………………………………………….. 64 UT to South Hominy #4……………………………………………………… 71 Sam's Branch #2……………………………………….……………………… 77 Curtis Creek #2…………………………………………….…………………. 80 Warren Creek #2……………………………………………………………… 87 UT to South Hominy #1………………………………….……………..……. 92 Curtis Creek #1…………………………………………….…………………. 98 Glady Fork #1…………………………………………………………...….... 104 UT to South Hominy #2……………………………..………………………. 110 Curtis Creek #3……………………………………..………………………… 117 Beaverdam Creek #2…………………………………..……………………… 123 Morgan Branch #2……………………………………………………………. 129 Ballard Creek…………………………………………………………………. 135 Warren Creek #1……………………………………………………………… 142 UT to Curtis Creek #2………………………………………………………… 149 Morgan Branch #1……………………………………………………………. 156 South Hominy Creek #1……………………………………………………… 162 UT to South Hominy #5………………………...……………………………. 169

Tables Table 1 SMU Ratios……………………….…………………………………………… 3 Table 2 Cost Assumptions for Project Sites…………….……………………………… 4 Table 3 Site Index ……………………………………………………………………… 9

i

Figures Figure 1 South Hominy Atlas Index …………………………………………………… 6 Figure 2 Stream Restoration Site Prioritization Tool ………………………………….. 7

Appendix Appendix 1 ………………………………………………………………………….. 176

ii

Phase IV Watershed Assessment South Hominy Creek Watershed March 2007

Introduction The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) contracted with Buck Engineering to develop a local watershed plan for the South Hominy Creek Watershed in the French Broad River Basin. The objective of this plan was to develop a set of management strategies to restore and protect the functional integrity of the watershed. The present document is a result of Phase IV of the planning process, and it identifies and prioritizes stream and wetland project opportunities to address functional deficits. This work is being completed as part of the Local Watershed Planning (LWP) initiative that is administered by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). This fourth phase of the assessment presents a Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas with a prioritized list of potential stream mitigation project sites based on work completed summarized in four project memos and recent efforts. The HU of interest is the South Hominy Creek Watershed, (HU 06010105060020) which is located in the southwest portion of Buncombe County and has an area of 38.4 square miles. This watershed includes the communities of Beaverdam, South Hominy, Stony Fork, Glady, Dunsmore, and portions of Candler. Pisgah National Forest spans the southern and southwestern periphery of the watershed and composes approximately 22.3% of the total watershed area. There are four major tributaries in the watershed: Beaverdam Creek, Stony Fork, Glady Fork, and Warren Creek. In Phase IV, specific project sites were identified and prioritized based on a number of factors including the potential for functional improvement, site constraints, potential stream mitigation units (SMUs), location within the watershed, and the number of landowners per site. An initial list of potential project sites was created based on stream length and the number of landowners per project using GIS. These sites were then visited to determine constraints, restoration approaches, and the potential for improvement. All potential sites were then prioritized based on observations and collected data and undesirable sites were culled. This report presents a GIS based atlas of the prioritized sites along with photos and a site assessment.

Methods Base mapping of the South Hominy Watershed was complied in GIS using aerial photography flown in 2002 and Buncombe County parcel data from 2006. GIS was used to make an initial list of potential stream mitigation sites. These sites were identified based on stream length and the number of landowners per site. The stream length cutoff for a project was 2,000 feet. This cutoff is due to the economies of scale when considering design and construction costs. Projects with numerous landowners were eliminated to save time and effort with landowner negotiations. For a site to be considered it had to have no more than 4 landowners per 2,000 linear feet of stream.

1

Phase IV Watershed Assessment South Hominy Creek Watershed March 2007

The number of parcels and landowners per project site was determined using GIS parcel and stream data. However, these determinations were often difficult to make because of the limited detail represented in the GIS parcel layers. For example, it is often unclear whether a property boundary is defined by the location of a stream channel or nearby road. In the atlas, project parcels are outlined in blue and non-project parcels are outlined in gray. Appendix 1 gives parcel numbers, landowner names, and contact addresses for all of the project parcels and relates them to a prioritized project site. An effort was also made to demonstrate circumstances where one landowner owns several properties on one project site as this would lessen the number of necessary landowner negotiations. In the atlas, parcels are shaded to represent instances when one person owns more than one parcel on a single restoration site. This information is subject to interpretation based on variations in spousal and corporate ownership as well as inconsistencies with spelling and abbreviations in the parcel geodatabase. For example, an individual may own two properties; one that is listed in his name in the parcel database, and another that is listed in the name of his company. In instances such as this, the properties are represented in the atlas as owned by two individuals. Site visits were conducted in December 2006 and January 2007 to quickly assess the sites, identify constraints, and determine appropriate restoration strategies. Generally, landowner permission was not obtained for these site visits. Sites were inspected from roads and other areas with public access. Site Assessment Forms were filled out during these visits. Observations and recommendations made during the site visits should be viewed within this context and the potential SMUs listed for each site are rough estimates. Sites that were determined to be particularly promising were revisited to collect cross-section data, with landowner permission. These data are displayed in the atlas along with the site assessments. Wetlands that were identified in Technical Memo 3 and during the most recent site assessments are also included in the atlas. The identification of wetlands was conducted using a combination of GPS points, field data, and remote sensing data (as noted in section 2.3.5 of Technical Memo 3). The only site that has any of the identified wetlands located on project parcels is Glady Fork #2. This site has an estimated 1.1 acres of potential wetland restoration. Potential agricultural and stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are also identified. BMP strategies include fencing livestock out of streams, controlling sediment from gravel roads, and constructing stormwater detention wetlands. These BMPs are included in the descriptive assessment of the site. Restoration approaches are suggested for each site and the corresponding SMUs are calculated. For the purposes of mitigation credit, the US Army Corps of Engineers defines a stream improvement hierarchy with the associated SMU credit generation (USACE, 2003). For the purposes of this report, conservative estimates of potential SMUs per site were made by using the lowest ratio (stream feet repaired to SMUs earned) provided by the USACE per hierarchical level as follows:

2

Phase IV Watershed Assessment South Hominy Creek Watershed March 2007

Table 1. SMU Ratios

USACE Mitigation Hierarchy Restoration Enhancement I Enhancement II Preservation

USACE SMU Ratio* 1:1 1.0 to 1.5 : 1 1.5 to 2.5 : 1 5:1

Assumed SMU Ratio* 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1

*Stream feet repaired to SMUs earned

Site constraints such as structures, power lines, ponds, and roads located near streams that could limit restoration options were identified at each site. Each site was given a score according to a qualitative assessment of these constraining factors. Sites with many constraining factors were given a score of 1, sites with some constraining factors were given a score of two, and sites with few constraints were given a 3. An example of a site with few constraints is a preservation stream on which there are no structures or roads that would interfere with an easement. An example of a site with many constraints is a reach in need of restoration that parallels a road and has several structures located within 50 feet of the channel. These constraints were helpful in narrowing the list and prioritizing the sites. Constraints at each site are described in the individual assessment forms. The opportunity for improvement at each site was also qualitatively assessed and assigned a numerical value for the purposes of ranking. Preservation sites were given low scores as these sites will be protected but not improved. Severely impaired sites where livestock access the streams were given high scores. The opportunity for improvement was also useful in prioritizing the sites and is described in the individual assessment forms. The location of each site within the watershed was used as a ranking category. This ranking was driven by priorities identified by stakeholders during Phase III of the Local Watershed Planning (LWP) process. Streams located adjacent to forested headwater streams were identified as the highest priorities because of the potential to restore or preserve ecological connectivity. The Beaverdam drainage of South Hominy watershed was identified as a lower priority because stakeholders felt there was less opportunity for restoration and less chance for functional uplift due to impacts in the drainage. The ranking system that was developed for the location of streams within the watershed placed streams not adjacent to forested headwaters in the lowest category, Beaverdam streams adjacent to forested headwaters in the middle category, and South Hominy streams outside of the Beaverdam drainage and adjacent to forested headwaters in the highest category. After the GIS and field assessments were completed, sites were prioritized based on five categories: length of stream per landowner, potential for improvement, on-site

3

Phase IV Watershed Assessment South Hominy Creek Watershed March 2007

constraints, SMUs, and location within the watershed. A priority matrix was used to rank the sites. Each site was scored according to the following parameters: • • • • •

Opportunity for improvement: low 1, moderate 2, good 3, excellent 4 Site constraints: many 1, some 2, few 3 Site location within the watershed: streams not adjacent to forested headwaters 1, Beaverdam streams adjacent to forested headwaters 2, South Hominy streams outside of the Beaverdam watershed that are adjacent to forested headwaters 3 Feet of stream per project divided by the number of landowners: 504 to 5,290 Estimated SMUs: 771 to 5,535

The numerical values of the scores vary greatly between categories. For example, SMUs generated per site vary from 771 to 5,535, while the opportunity for improvement varies from 1 to 4. To be able to prioritize the sites based on all of the prioritization categories the category scores are normalized. This was done by dividing the true score by the largest possible score per category. To illustrate, a stream with a low opportunity for improvement and a score of 1 is normalized by dividing by 4 (the largest possible value for this field) and thus calculating a prioritized score of 0.25. The result of this strategy is that the score for all normalized priority categories rank between 0 and 1. The five prioritization categories are then summed per site to achieve a final multi-parameter priority ranking (Table 3). Project cost estimates are also provided. These cost estimates include permitting, design, construction, five years of monitoring, and land costs of $10,000/acre. Table 2 shows the costs per linear foot assumptions used to generate these estimates. The ranges that are provided allow for adjustments according to site specific strategies, stream length, and constraints such as excessive earthwork. For example, the cost per linear foot would have been priced on the lower end of the range that is provided in Table 2 for a restoration project on a 4,000 foot stream reach with a small drainage area running through a field with few constraints. Project cost estimates are rough, often based only on aerial photography and roadside visits. Detailed information such as rock requirements and variations in land prices were not considered. These estimates should be considered cautiously. The project costs are displayed in the priority matrix but were not used as a ranking category. Table 2 Cost Assumptions for Project Sites

Improvement Strategy Cost Per Linear Foot Restoration

$180 to $300

Enhancement Level I

$180 to $250

Enhancement Level II

$80 to $140

Preservation

$30 to $70

4

Phase IV Watershed Assessment South Hominy Creek Watershed March 2007

Results and Conclusions Of the 73.6 miles of mapped streams in the South Hominy watershed, 20 miles or 27 percent were identified as potential project streams. In comparison, of the 4,334 parcels in the same area, only 127 parcels or 0.62 percent were identified as potential project parcels. There are less than 100 landowners who own these 127 parcels. Overall, site lengths range from 1,960 to 9,950 feet and the potential SMUs generated per site range from 771 to 5,535. Twenty-seven sites and 68,944 SMUs were identified through this process. The combination of sites ranked with the highest priorities of 1 through 13 meet the project goal of generating 40,000 SMUs. Figure 1 presents an overview of these sites and their locations. Figure 2 is a representation of the priority matrix used to rank each site; Table 3 provides assessment scores for the sites based on parameters including location, constraints, project length, opportunity for improvement, and potential SMUs.

5

Phase IV Watershed Assessment South Hominy Creek Watershed March 2007 Figure 1 South Hominy Atlas Index

6

Phase IV Watershed Assessment South Hominy Creek Watershed March 2007

Figure 2 shows the Stream Restoration Site Prioritization Tool that was developed to aid in decision making when selecting sites for further investigation. This figure gives a graphic representation of each prioritization category at each site along with the forecasted project costs. The bars and right axis show forecasted project costs. The colored areas and the left axis show the priority rankings at each site. Each color represents a category. The total area represents the category rankings summed, so the upper line indicates the final prioritization ranking. Figure 2 Stream Restoration Site Prioritization Tool

This figure is helpful in understanding why the sites are ranked as they are and may be useful in targeting sites based on one of the represented categories. For example, sites ranked between 14 and 21 have a similar overall priority ranking. If the EEP is looking at these eight sites and is trying to maximize SMUs then Site 20 might be chosen. Or if the EEP wants a site in a beneficial location, Site 14 might be chosen.

7

Phase IV Watershed Assessment South Hominy Creek Watershed March 2007

Another issue that the Stream Restoration Prioritization Tool brings up is the ranking of preservation sites. Preservation sites ranked seven and eight by their nature will be inexpensive, have few constraints, and a high number of feet per landowner. These sites also inherently have a low opportunity for improvement.

8

Phase IV Watershed Assessment South Hominy Creek Watershed March 2007

Table 3 Site Index showing each proposed project site ranked by priority with the associated assessment information. Priority

Name

Length (ft)

SMUs

Number of Landowners

Feet Per Landowner

Constraints

Opportunity for Improvement

Location

Priority Score

Project Cost

Cost Per Foot

1

South Hominy Creek #2

9,950

5,535

6

1,658

Few

Good

High

4.06

$1,442,932

$145

2

Sam's Branch #1

6,345

4,797

5

1,269

Few

Good

High

3.86

$1,079,636

$170

3

Glady Fork #2

5,265

5,265

7

752

Few

Excellent

Medium

3.76

$1,267,903

$241

4

UT to Beaverdam Creek

5,220

4,327

7

746

Few

Excellent

Medium

3.59

$1,152,666

$221

5

UT to Curtis Creek #1

3,700

3,480

3

1,233

Some

Excellent

High

3.53

$817,024

$221

6

South Hominy Creek #4

5,265

1,053

1

5,265

Few

Low

High

3.44

$372,853

$71

7

South Hominy Creek #3

4,955

1,785

1

4,955

Few

Moderate

Medium

3.43

$503,500

$102

8

UT to South Hominy #6

5,290

1,058

1

5,290

Few

Low

High

3.44

$374,623

$71

9

UT to South Hominy #3

3,525

2,925

3

1,175

Few

Excellent

Medium

3.42

$723,881

$205

10

Beaverdam Creek #1

5,265

4,145

5

1,053

Few

Excellent

Low

3.28

$1,117,853

$212

11

UT to South Hominy #4

2,450

2,450

4

613

Few

Excellent

Medium

3.23

$590,002

$241

12

Sam's Branch #2

3,855

771

1

3,855

13

Curtis Creek #2

3,120

3,120

5

624

14

Warren Creek #2

5,940

1,782

3

1,980

15

UT to South Hominy #1

2,220

2,220

2

1,110

Few

Excellent

Low

16

Curtis Creek #1

3,115

2,725

6

519

Few

Excellent

Low

17

Glady Fork #1

2,400

2,400

3

800

Some

Excellent

Medium

18

UT to South Hominy #2

2,520

2,022

5

504

Few

Good

Medium

19

Curtis Creek #3

2,345

2,135

3

782

Many

Excellent

High

20

Beaverdam Creek #2

3,705

3,705

4

926

Some

Excellent

Low

21

Morgan Branch #2

2,760

2,073

5

552

Some

Excellent

Medium

22

Ballard Creek

2,960

1,404

2

1,480

Many

Good

High

23

Warren Creek #1

1,960

1,960

3

653

Some

Good

24

UT to Curtis Creek #2

2,370

1,354

4

593

Many

25

Morgan Branch #1

2,180

1,453

4

545

Some

26

South Hominy Creek #1

4,780

1,912

5

956

Some

27

UT to South Hominy #5

2,160

1,088

4

540

Many

105,620

68,944

102

40,428

$18,333,694

3,912

2,553

4

1,497

$679,026

Sum Average

Few

Low

High

3.12

$158,575

$41

Some

Good

High

3.10

$844,950

$271

Few

Low

High

2.95

$480,055

$81

2.94

$623,414

$281

2.92

$594,946

$191

2.92

$625,961

$261

2.88

$507,260

$201

2.87

$519,216

$221

2.84

$1,003,378

$271

2.81

$699,656

$254

2.62

$412,319

$139

Low

2.23

$472,002

$241

Moderate

High

2.19

$384,437

$162

Good

Low

2.12

$524,982

$241

Moderate

Low

2.03

$673,107

$141

Moderate

Medium

1.80

$366,565

$170

9

South Hominy Stream Mitigation Atlas Index 3,000 Feet ga h

Hw

y

0

10

P is

K

3,000 1,500

26

15 Be

21 25

13 Cu

rt is

C rk

R d

5

m Rd

19

24

a aver d

18

16 20

Wa rr

en C

11 rk

Rd

9

23

M cFee Ln

27 U

pp

14

er

G la

dy F

Rd o k r

17

4

3

ch R d

k

Rd

2

Cr

B ra n

vi s

12

Da

S a m 's

1

22 Saw Branch

7

Legend

6

Roads

8

Non-project Streams

Project Stream Priority 1.8 - 2.3 Lowest 2.4 - 2.8 Low 2.9 - 3.2 Moderate 3.3 - 3.7 High 3.8 - 4.1 Highest

Priority 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Name South Hominy Creek #2 Sam's Branch #1 Glady Fork #2 UT to Beaverdam Creek UT to Curtis Creek #1 South Hominy Creek #4 South Hominy Creek #3 UT to South Hominy #6 UT to South Hominy #3

Priority 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Name Beaverdam Creek #1 UT to South Hominy #4 Sam's Branch #2 Curtis Creek #2 Warren Creek #2 UT to South Hominy #1 Curtis Creek #1 Glady Fork #1 UT to South Hominy #2

Priority 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Name Curtis Creek #3 Beaverdam Creek #2 Morgan Branch #2 Ballard Creek Warren Creek #1 UT to Curtis Creek #2 Morgan Branch #1 South Hominy Creek #1 UT to South Hominy #5

10

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

1

Subwatershed: Upper South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft): 9,950

South Hominy Creek #2 Drainage Area (mi2): 4.40

Number of Parcels:

10

Stream Order: 3rd

Number of Landowners:

6

Avg. Width (ft): Varies: 10 – 35 Sinuosity: Varies: moderate to low Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 1 – 2.5 Degree of Incision: Varies: not incised to very incised Depositional features:

Few

Beltwidth:

Varies: normal to narrow

Substrate: Varies: sand, gravel, and cobble

Land Use: Forested, pasture, and residential

Estimated SMUs:

Restoration (ft): 2,205 Enhancement I (ft): 2,515 Enhancement II (ft): 3,035

Existing Conditions:

5,535

Preservation (ft): 2195

This site is located on South Hominy Creek and on two tributaries to South

Hominy Creek by Davis Creek Road and Pisgah View Ranch Road. This is a large project maintained as one site because the streams are contained primarily within the Pisgah View Ranch owed by the Cogburn family (Ranchlands Inc). Streams on this site vary in size (drainage areas from 0.23 to 4.40 sq miles) and condition.

Some sections are fully functional, some sections are straightened and channelized with

minimal riparian buffers, and in some areas damage from hurricanes Ivan and Francis is still visible.

Riparian Vegetation: The upper reaches of Tributaries 1 and 2 (Photo 1) are largely forested (except for 400 feet on the uppermost right side of reach 2). Invasives are growing along Tributary 1. Down from these reaches the riparian buffers vary greatly in width from nonexistent to greater than 100 feet.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach:

This site has potential for restoration,

enhancement, and preservation. The forested upper reaches on Tributaries 1 and 2 may be suitable for preservation. Downstream from these reaches a mix of restoration and enhancement will be appropriate.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

There are several fields on the property that have streams running

through them. The streams are generally not fenced to prevent livestock access. No horses having direct access to streams were observed. However, if horses are occasionally kept in these fields they should be fenced out of the streams.

11

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Overall, there are relatively few constraints in this site as a whole. Several structures are located near the streams and there are several road crossings. There is also a large pond located off of Tributary 2. These constraints should not pose a significant threat to a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

All functional aspects of the

streams may be improved by restoring dimension, pattern and profile; allowing the stream greater access to its floodplain; controlling erosion; fencing horses out of the stream, restoring bedform diversity; and enhancing riparian buffers. These streams display varying degrees of need but considering the size of the site, the potential for improvement is good.

Landowner Contact: Buck personnel spoke with Mrs. Cogburn while doing the site assessment. She is aware of this program and may be open to a restoration project on her property.

12

Photo 1: Tributary 1 in the forested area near cabins, looking upstream

Photo 2: Tributary 1 just downstream from the forested area, looking downstream

South Hominy Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 13

Photo 3: Tributary 2, looking upstream

Photo 4: Tributary 2, looking downstream

South Hominy Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 14

Photo 5: Tributary 2 at Davis Creek Road turn, looking upstream

Photo 6: Tributary 3 at Davis Creek Road, looking downstream

South Hominy Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 15

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

16

17

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

2

Subwatershed: Upper South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft): Avg. Width (ft):

6,345

Sam’s Branch #1

Drainage Area (mi2): 0.97

Number of Parcels:

6

Degree of Incision: Varies: None to Very

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: Embedded

Substrate:

Land Use: Forested, pasture, and some residential

3rd

Number of Landowners: 5

Sinuosity: Low

15 - 20

Stream Order:

Bank Height Ratio: 1 – >2 Low Sand, grave, cobble Estimated SMUs:

Enhancement II (ft): 2,580

4,797

Restoration (ft): 3,765

Enhancement I (ft):

Preservation (ft):

Existing Conditions:

This site is located on Sam’s Branch near Sam’s Branch Road and includes

several tributaries to Sam’s Branch. Many of the streams on this site have been straightened and are incised. Sam’s Branch closely parallels Sam’s Branch Road and functions as a ditch (Photos 4 and 5). Upstream portions of the project are forested (Photos 1 and 2). Though much of the landuse surrounding these streams is pasture, no livestock were noted as having access to the creek at the time of inspection. According to the parcel data, Ellen and Johnnie Davis own approximately 3000 feet of this project reach. Their land alone could support a project.

Riparian Vegetation:

The riparian buffer in this reach varies from nonexistent to over 100 feet wide.

Invasive plant species are present throughout the project reaches.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Stream improvements at this site may include a combination of restoration and enhancement level II. Conditions vary from lightly impacted to extremely degraded. Generally, the forested areas may be improved through enhancement level II techniques such as the removal of invasive species and the areas without riparian buffers may be improved through full restoration practices. Wherever possible, the stream should be moved away from the road.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

18

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Several constraints exist on this project site. Sam’s Branch Road parallels the stream, coming within 20 feet of the channel. However, in this case because of the flat topography the stream may be moved away from the road. This alignment may be considered an opportunity for improvement rather than a constraint. Other constraints include a pond adjacent to the stream, driveway crossings, and power lines. On the Davis property none of these constraints are significant factors. Considering the size of this project, constraints present a minimal threat to a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration at this site has the

potential to improve all functional aspects of the stream. However, the channel is not incised or unstable throughout the entire project site and it appears that livestock do not have access to the stream. Therefore, the potential for improvement here is good but not great.

Surveyed Cross-section 1 Drainage Area (mi2) 0.092

Bankfull Area (ft2) 6.1

Bankfull Width (ft) 5.23

Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.16

Max Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.57

Width to Depth Ratio 4.5

Bank Height Ratio 3.1

Entrenchment Ratio 2.7

Cross-section 102

Elevation

101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 100

110

120

130

140

Station

150

160

Bankfull

170

180

Floodprone

19

Surveyed Cross-section 2 Drainage Area (mi2) 0.97

Bankfull Area (ft2) 24.4

Bankfull Width (ft) 10.01

Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.44

Max Bankfull Depth (ft) 3.13

Width to Depth Ratio 4.11

Bank Height Ratio 1.3

Entrenchment Ratio 5.4

Cross-section 102

Elevation

101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 100

110

120

130

Station

140

150

Bankfull

160

Floodprone

20

Photo 1: The upstream forested portion of this site

Photo 2: The upstream forested portion near the road, looking upstream

Sam’s Branch #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2006 21

Photo 3: Looking upstream at a perched culvert in the most impaired 375 feet of the project

Photo 4: Looking downstream at the most impaired 375 feet of the project

Sam’s Branch #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2006 22

Photo 5: The stream as it parallels Sam’s Branch Road

Photo 6: One of the tributaries in pasture

Sam’s Branch #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2006 23

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

24

25

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

3

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft):

5,265

Avg. Width (ft): Varies 5–30

Glady Fork #2

Drainage Area (mi2): 3.83

Number of Parcels:

7

Stream Order:

3rd

Number of Landowners: 7

Sinuosity: Varies: Moderate to Low Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 1– 2

Degree of Incision: Varies: None - High

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: Embedded

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Varies: Moderate to Low

Land Use: Fallow field, pasture, and residential Estimated SMUs:5,265 plus possible wetland restoration Restoration (ft): 5,265

Existing Conditions:

Enhancement I (ft):

Enhancement II (ft):

Preservation (ft):

This site is located on Glady Fork and includes 3 tributaries to Glady Fork along

Upper Glady Fork Road. The site is contiguous with Glady Fork #1. Streams on this site generally run through pasture and mowed fields. These streams are incised and have minimal riparian buffers. On Tributaries 1 and 2 livestock have access to the stream channels which are trampled and lack bedform diversity. The headwater of Tributary 2 is located within the project parcel boundaries. The upper portion of Tributary 1 may be intermittent. Several potential wetlands that were identified in this and previous surveys are located on this site. Tributary 3 was flowing during the site visit but may be intermittent.

Riparian Vegetation:

Riparian buffers throughout this project reach vary in width between nonexistent

and one tree wide.

Wetlands:

Four potential wetland restoration locations were identified on this site. These are areas

in mowed fields and pastures where livestock access the wetlands.

In total, the estimated wetland

restoration area is 1.1 acres.

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Stream improvements at this site should involve restoration throughout. This is a classic restoration site running through pasture and fields with a minimal riparian buffer and few constraints. The mainstem has a rather large drainage area but the smaller tributaries originate within or near the property boundaries. This large site has over 5,000 possible feet of restoration. Within this site, 2,500 feet of stream are owned between just two landowners. This portion alone would be a suitable restoration project.

26

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Fence livestock out of streams and wetlands.

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints near this site include road crossings and a few structures.

Overall, these constraints are minor and pose little threat to the

implementation of a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration here would greatly

improve all functional aspects of the stream by restoring pattern, profile, and dimension; stabilizing the banks; fencing out cattle; allowing the stream access to its floodplain; and enhancing the riparian buffer. Work done at this site would greatly improve the functionality of this stream.

Landowner Contacts:

Mr. Ray Pressley (101) the largest landowner at this site was contacted and is

currently not interested in the program. Kristen Hillegas and Mary Lyn Roman (108) were also contacted and they signed a site proposal form. Evangeline Wheeler and her daughter Kathy Edwards (104) are interested in the project and also signed a site proposal form. Dale Edmunds (107) has been contacted by Land Quality about grading and erosion problems on his property and may be opposed to a state project. P. J. Duck (103) is not interested in the program. Kathryn Wagner (Moody) (99) and husband Thomas Wagner have an interest in the program but did not sign a site proposal form.

27

Surveyed Cross-section 1 Drainage Area (mi2) 0.05

Bankfull Area (ft2) 2.1

Bankfull Width (ft) 6.1

Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.34

Max Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.01

Width to Depth Ratio 18.07

Bank Height Ratio 2

Entrenchment Ratio 1.9

Cross-section 99.5 99 Elevation

98.5 98 97.5 97 96.5 96 95.5 100

110

120

130

140

Station

150

Bankfull

160

Floodprone

Surveyed Cross-section 2 Drainage Area (mi2) 3.8

Bankfull Area (ft2) 40.2

Bankfull Width (ft) 19.06

Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.11

Max Bankfull Depth (ft) 3.1

Width to Depth Ratio 9.04

Bank Height Ratio 1.7

Entrenchment Ratio 4.2

Cross-section 101

Elevation

100 99 98 97 96 95 94 100

110

120

130

140

150

Station

160

170

Bankfull

180

190

Floodprone

28

Photo 1: Downstream, looking upstream on the Glady Fork mainstem

Photo 2: Looking upstream on Tributary 1

Glady Fork #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2007 29

Photo 3: Possible wetland off of Tributary 2

Photo 4: Looking across at the upstream section of the Glady Fork mainstem

Glady Fork #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2007 30

Photo 5: Looking across at Tributary 3

Glady Fork #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2007 31

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

32

33

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

4

UT to Beaverdam Creek

Subwatershed: Beaverdam Creek

Drainage Area (mi2): 1.01

Reach Length (ft):

Number of Parcels:

5,220

Sinuosity: Very Low

Avg. Width (ft): 10 – 20

Degree of Incision: Varies: None - Moderate Depositional features: None

Stream Order:

11

1st

Number of Landowners:

7

Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 1 – 1.5 Beltwidth:

Low

Substrate: Sand, gravel, cobble, bedrock

Land Use: Mowed fields, pasture, residential, community park, and forested Estimated SMUs: 4,327 Restoration (ft): 2,540

Enhancement I (ft): 2,680 Enhancement II (ft):

Preservation (ft):

Existing Conditions:

This site is located on an unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek along Smith

Cove Road and a short section on Beaverdam Creek. These streams have been straightened and the majority of this site has no riparian buffer. Cows have direct access to much of the downstream portion of the site. The middle portion the unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek flows through a community park. Upstream from the park is first a mowed field, then a residential area with several nearby ponds, and finally an area where more cows have access to the stream. Part of this upstream section has been channelized and the banks reinforced with brick walls (Photo 1). Downstream from the community park land use is pasture and cows have access to the streams.

Riparian Vegetation:

Generally, the riparian buffers on this project reach vary in width between

nonexistent and one tree wide. There are short isolated areas with wider buffers.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Stream improvements at this site should involve enhancement I on the upper half and restoration on the lower half. In the upper half of the site adjusting dimension and enhancing the riparian buffer is appropriate. In the downstream half, sinuosity should be increased and the brick walls that are reinforcing the banks should be removed. A functional pattern, profile, dimension, and riparian buffer should be returned to the stream.

Potential BMP Opportunities: Livestock should be fenced out of the stream. Erosion control devices should also be placed by the borrow pit (Photo 3) to prevent sediment from entering the stream.

34

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints near this site include roads, road crossings, power lines, ponds, and structures. It may be difficult to get landowner approval for removing the brick walls that line the channel. This project reach is so long that even if the upstream landowners do not grant an easement the downstream portion could still present a viable project. Constraints on this reach pose a slight threat to a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration here would improve all

functional aspects of the stream by restoring pattern, profile, and dimension; fencing livestock out of the channel; reducing erosion; and enhancing the riparian buffer. The reaches where livestock access the stream are severely degraded and have a particularly high potential for improvement (Photos 4 and 6). Restoration at this site would greatly improve the functionality of this stream.

Landowner Contacts:

Robert and Vicki Warren own five parcels along this site (46, 48, 97, 100, 106).

We attempted to contact these landowners to determine if they would be interested in a project. We were referred to their attorney, Ms. Cathleen Fish (667-0875). Apparently their property has been seized by the federal government over tax issues and there isn’t a timetable for resolving the case. No other landowners at this site have been contacted.

Surveyed Cross-section Drainage Area (mi2) 1.0

Bankfull Area (ft2) 20.6

Bankfull Width (ft) 11.79

Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.75

Max Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.82

Width to Depth Ratio 6.75

Bank Height Ratio 1

Entrenchment Ratio 4.6

Elevation

Cross-section 101.5 101 100.5 100 99.5 99 98.5 98 97.5 97 96.5 96

Bankfull 100

110

120

130

140

150

160

Station

35

Photo 1: Looking upstream, where the stream banks have been reinforced with brick walls

Photo 2: The middle portion looking downstream

UT to Beaverdam Creek South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 36

Photo 3: Borrow pit

Photo 4: The upstream portion where livestock have access to the stream, looking downstream

UT to Beaverdam Creek South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 37

Photo 5: The stream reach by the community park, looking downstream

Photo 6: Downstream from the community park where cows have access to the stream, looking downstream UT to Beaverdam Creek South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 38

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

39

40

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

5

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek

UT to Curtis Creek #1 Drainage Area (mi2): Mainstem 1.95/ Headwaters 0.14

Stream Order: Mainstem 3rd/ Headwaters 1st Reach Length (ft): 3,700 ft Avg. Width (ft): 10 - 25 ft Degree of Incision: Very incised Depositional features:

Number of Parcels:

3

Sinuosity: Low to Moderate Beltwidth:

None

3

Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 2 – 3 Narrow beltwidth

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Agriculture, pasture, residential, and mowed field Restoration (ft): 3,040

Number of Landowners:

Enhancement I (ft): 660

Estimated SMUs:

Enhancement II (ft):

3,480

Preservation (ft):

Existing Conditions: This site is located on Curtis Creek along Curtis Creek Road and Ladybird Lane. This site is composed of a 660 foot reach on Curtis Creek and a 3,040 feet on two unnamed tributaries to Curtis Creek. The Curtis Creek reach has been straightened and is very incised. The unnamed tributaries to Curtis Creek are also generally very incised (except in the uppermost sections). These streams appear to be perennial near their confluence and the headwaters likely occur within the project parcel. The tributaries run through pasture where, in sections, cattle are not fenced out. They are trampled and lack bedform diversity as a result.

Riparian Vegetation: The riparian buffer on Curtis Creek is less than 20 feet wide on both sides with few trees and many invasives. The right bank is bordered by pasture and the left bank is next to a equipment storage site. The tributaries have virtually no riparian buffer and flow through pastureland.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: On the Curtis Creek reach, stream improvements should involve enhancement level I in the form of restoring pattern, dimension, and a riparian buffer. On the unnamed tributaries to Curtis Creek full restoration would be appropriate including restoring pattern, profile, and dimension as well as planting a riparian buffer and fencing out the cattle.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Fencing out cattle from the unnamed tributaries will improve water

quality.

41

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints at this site include several driveways, road crossings and structures near the tributaries as well as an equipment storage area adjacent to Curtis Creek. Though there are several constraints at this site, there are few constraints in the upper reaches of the tributaries which contain a good deal of stream length.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat): Enhancement and restoration here would improve all functional aspects of the stream by reducing erosion, allowing storm flows to access a floodplain, increasing bedform diversity, keeping cattle out of the stream, and restoring a functional riparian buffer. This site has a great potential from improvements.

Landowner Contact:

Marie Elliot, the primary landowner at this site, was contacted and is not

interested in the program at this time.

42

Photo 1: Curtis Creek reach looking upstream

Photo 2: Tributary’s confluence with Curtis Creek looking downstream

UT to Curtis Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 43

Photo 3: Tributary looking upstream

Photo 4: Tributary looking upstream

UT to Curtis Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 44

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

45

46

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

6

Subwatershed: Upper South Hominy Creek

South Hominy Creek #4 Drainage Area (mi2): 0.47

Reach Length (ft): 5,265

Number of Parcels:

Avg. Width (ft): 15

Sinuosity: Low

Degree of Incision: Unknown

2

Restoration (ft):

Existing Conditions:

Number of Landowners: 1

Beltwidth:

Low

Substrate: Unknown Estimated SMUs:

Enhancement I (ft):

1st

Bank Height Ratio: Unknown

Depositional features: Unknown Land Use: Forested

Stream Order:

1,053

Enhancement II (ft):

Preservation (ft): 5,265

This site is located on a private driveway past the end of Brooks Cove Road.

This reach is the headwater of South Hominy Creek. “Posted, No Trespassing” signs prevented any inspection of the site. So, photos were not taken. According to aerial photography, this is a steep mountain stream surrounded by forest.

Riparian Vegetation:

Because of its remote location, it is assumed that the vegetation surrounding this

site is primarily composed of native species.

Wetlands:

None/Unknown

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: It is assumed that this site is in relatively pristine condition and would be a candidate for preservation only.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Because of its forested nature, it is unlikely that any constraints on this site would pose a significant threat to a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

It is likely that this stream is fully

functioning. Preservation here would prevent future degradation.

47

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

48

49

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority: Subwatershed:

Site Name:

7

Upper South Hominy Creek

South Hominy Creek #3 Drainage Area (mi2):

1.47

Reach Length (ft): 4,955

Number of Parcels:

2

Avg. Width (ft):

Sinuosity:

Bank Height Ratio:

25

Low

Degree of Incision: Varies from not incised to very incised Depositional features: Embedded

Number of Landowners:

3rd

1

Varies: 1 - 2

Beltwidth: Normal beltwidth

Substrate: Sand, gravel, and coble

Land Use: Forested, mowed field, some residential Restoration (ft): 655

Stream Order:

Enhancement I (ft):

Estimated SMUs:

1,785

Enhancement II (ft): 1,350 Preservation (ft): 2,950

Existing Conditions: This site is located on South Hominy Creek by South Brooks Cove Road and an unnamed tributary to South Hominy Creek. A mowed field boarders the stream on the left with a riparian buffer separating the stream from the field by at least 40 feet. The field does not appear to be used for agricultural purposes. The upstream section is not incised and has a relatively fully functioning riparian buffer. The downstream section of this stream is incised and the riparian buffer is impaired. This site is contiguous with South Hominy Creek #4.

Riparian Vegetation: On South Hominy Creek the left bank has a functioning (upstream) to impaired (downstream) riparian buffer. This buffer width varies from 40 to 150 feet. On the right bank the riparian buffer is generally fully functioning (except at the uppermost section of the reach) with a width of greater than 100 feet. On the left bank the buffer is mostly intact in the upstream section but generally gets narrower in the downstream direction. There are invasives growing in the downstream portion of the site. The unnamed tributary to South Hominy Creek has no riparian buffer and invasives growing throughout.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: The downstream section of South Hominy Creek would benefit from level II enhancement.

The banks should be stabilized and riparian vegetation

enhanced. The uppermost section would likely be preservation. The unnamed tributary to South Hominy Creek has been channelized and would benefit from full restoration.

50

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Erosion control along dirt roads would lessen the supply of fine

sediments to downstream reaches.

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints include the road crossings at South Brooks Cove and Smathers Roads and a barn on the downstream end located within 35 feet of South Hominy Creek. These constraints should not pose a significant threat to a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Water quality, hydrology, and

habitat may all be improved by allowing the stream greater access to its floodplain, controlling erosion, and enhancing riparian buffers. This stream is not severely impaired. So, the potential for improvement is less than what might be realized in a more damaged stream.

Landowner Contact: The entire site is owned by the Cogburn family, the same family who also own the majority of South Hominy #2 and South Hominy #4. South Hominy #2 is listed as having the highest priority in this atlas.

51

Photo 1: South Hominy Creek looking upstream from the Brooks Cove Road crossing

Photo 2: South Hominy Creek looking downstream from the Brooks Cove Road crossing

South Hominy Creek #3 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 52

Photo 3: South Hominy Creek enhancement section looking downstream

Photo 4: South Hominy Creek upper section looking upstream

South Hominy Creek #3 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 53

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

54

55

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

8

Subwatershed: Upper South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft): 5,290 Avg. Width (ft): 15

UT to South Hominy Creek #6 Drainage Area (mi2): 0.59

Number of Parcels:

1

Sinuosity: Low

Number of Landowners:

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: Unknown

Substrate: Unknown

Land Use: Forested

Estimated SMUs: Enhancement I (ft):

Existing Conditions:

1

Bank Height Ratio: Unknown

Degree of Incision: Unknown

Restoration (ft):

2nd

Stream Order:

Low

1,058

Enhancement II (ft):

Preservation (ft):

5,290

This site parallels a private driveway past the end of Ben’s Cove Road. The

reach is on an unnamed tributary that is a headwater to South Hominy Creek. “Posted, No Trespassing” signs prevented any inspection of the site. So, photos were not taken. According to aerial photography, this is a steep mountain stream surrounded by forest.

Riparian Vegetation:

Because of its remote location, it is assumed that the vegetation surrounding this

site is primarily composed of native species.

Wetlands:

None/Unknown

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: It is assumed that this site is in relatively pristine condition and would be a candidate for preservation only.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Because of its forested nature, it is unlikely that any constraints on this site would pose a significant threat to a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

It is likely that this stream is

currently fully functional. Preservation here would prevent future degradation.

56

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

57

58

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

9

Subwatershed: Lower South Hominy Valley

UT to South Hominy Creek #3 Drainage Area (mi2): 0.55

Reach Length (ft): 3,525

Number of Parcels:

Avg. Width (ft): 15 – 20

Sinuosity: Low

Beltwidth:

Existing Conditions:

Enhancement I (ft):

3

Low

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Pasture, residential, agriculture, forested Restoration (ft): 2,525

Number of Landowners:

Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 1 – 2

Degree of Incision: Varies: None - Very Depositional features: Some embeddedness

3

2nd

Stream Order:

Estimated SMUs:

Enhancement II (ft):

1,000

2,925 Preservation (ft):

This site is located on several unnamed tributaries to South Hominy Creek along

McFee Road. Landuse in the area is varied. Livestock have access to the streams which are in pasture (Photos 3 and 4). There are little to no riparian buffers in the pasture and agricultural areas. The stream is straightened, trampled, and lacks bedform diversity. The short tributary in the downstream portion of the project reach has recently been channelized and straightened (Photo 2). At the time of the original investigation these banks were raw earth, but have since been reseeded.

Riparian Vegetation:

The riparian buffers on this project vary in width between nonexistent and

greater than 100 feet. Agricultural landuse in the area is intense, with stream bank conditions that approach those seen in Photo 2.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Work done at this site should involve a mix of enhancement level II and restoration. In the downstream portions of the project, where there is no riparian buffer, land use is agricultural and pasture. Stream improvements should involve restoration. In the upper reaches, where the stream is less impacted, improvements should involve enhancement level II practices such as enhancing the riparian buffer and isolated areas of bank stabilization.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Livestock should be fenced out of the stream.

59

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints near this site include road crossings, utility lines, agricultural fields, and structures. These constraints should not pose a significant threat to a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration here would improve all

functional aspects of the stream by restoring pattern, profile, and dimension; fencing livestock out of the channel; reducing erosion; and enhancing the riparian buffer. The restoration at this site would greatly improve the functionality of this stream.

Landowner Contact: Mr. David Warren (35) has been contacted and is not interested in this program. Arnold White has purchased Bruce Whitt’s property (34) and may be interested in the program. Mr. White may be reached at 665-9121.

60

Photo 1: Downstream section looking upstream

Photo 2: Downstream section looking upstream, note the proximity of the recently tilled agricultural field UT to South Hominy #3 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 61

Photo 3: Upstream section looking across where livestock have access to the stream

Photo 4: Upstream section looking upstream where livestock have access to the stream

UT to South Hominy #3 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 62

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

63

64

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

10

Subwatershed: Beaverdam Creek

Drainage Area (mi2): 7.94 Stream Order:

Reach Length (ft): 5,265

Number of Parcels:

Avg. Width (ft):

Sinuosity:

30 - 45

Degree of Incision: Varies: Moderate - None Depositional features: Some

Beaverdam Creek #1

6

3rd

Number of Landowners:

Low

5

Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 1 – 2 Beltwidth:

Low

Substrate: Sand, gravel, and some bedrock

Land Use: Mowed fields, pasture, residential, and forested

4,145

Restoration (ft): 3,865

Enhancement I (ft):

Existing Conditions:

This site is located on Beaverdam Creek along Beaverdam Road. Conditions

within this reach vary greatly.

Enhancement II (ft):

Estimated SMUs:

Preservation (ft): 1,400

In the upstream portion of this project reach the stream has been

straightened and flows through a mowed field (Photo 1, 2, and 3). In the middle portion cattle have access to the stream and the channel is trampled, over-wide, and lacks bedform diversity (Photos 4 and 5). The downstream portion the stream is forested and in good condition.

Riparian Vegetation: The riparian buffer widths on this project reach vary between 0 and over 100 feet. There are invasives growing in the existing upstream buffers.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Stream improvements at this site should include full restoration throughout the upper 3,865 feet. A functional pattern, profile, dimension, and riparian buffer should be returned and livestock fenced out of the stream. In the downstream section preservation will be appropriate. Aside from this creek having a rather large drainage area, this should be a typical restoration site.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Fence out livestock.

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints located near this site include roads, road crossings, power lines, and structures. These constraints should not pose a significant threat to a successful project.

65

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration here would improve all

functional aspects of the stream by restoring pattern profile, and dimension; fencing livestock out of the channel; reducing erosion; and enhancing the riparian buffer. This site is in great need of restoration.

Landowner Contacts: The inspector spoke with Mr. Clark’s son who reported that Mr. Clark, the upstream landowner, had already been contacted and is unlikely to be interested in a stream restoration project on his property. This project reach would still be approximately 3,700 feet long without Mr. Clark’s segment.

66

Photo 1: Standing on the Bennett Road bridge looking upstream

Photo 2: Standing on the Bennett Road bridge looking downstream

Beaverdam Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 67

Photo 3: Looking across at the upstream portion of the site

Photo 4: Looking upstream at the middle portion in pasture

Beaverdam Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 68

Photo 5: Looking downstream at the middle portion of the site where cows have access to the stream

Beaverdam Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 69

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

70

71

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

11

Subwatershed: Lower South Hominy Valley

UT to South Hominy Creek #4 Drainage Area (mi2): 0.70

Reach Length (ft): 2,450

Number of Parcels:

Avg. Width (ft): 15 – 20

Sinuosity: Low

Degree of Incision: Varies: None - Very

Enhancement I (ft):

4

Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 1 – 2 Low

Substrate: Sand and gravel Estimated SMUs:

Land Use: Pasture and residential

Existing Conditions:

Number of Landowners:

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: Some embeddedness

Restoration (ft): 2,450

4

2nd

Stream Order:

2,450

Enhancement II (ft):

Preservation (ft):

This site is located on an unnamed tributary to South Hominy Creek along Upper

Glady Fork Road. Short sections of other streams are also included on these parcels and should be included in this site. The majority of this site flows through pastureland and livestock have access to these reaches. There is little to no riparian buffer. The stream is trampled and lacks bedform diversity. 1,700 feet of this project stream is located on one parcel owned by Paul and Martha Moses. This section is in the greatest need of improvements and may be long enough to serve as its own project.

Riparian Vegetation:

Riparian buffers on this project vary in width between nonexistent and one tree

wide. There are short areas with wider buffers.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Stream improvements at this site should involve restoration throughout the length of the streams. Functional pattern, profile, dimension, and riparian buffers should be returned to the stream. The stream runs through a field so design and construction should be relatively straight forward. The stream is not severely incised so earthwork will not be a major concern.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Livestock should be fenced out of the stream.

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints near this site include road crossings, power lines, and structures.

These constraints should not pose a significant threat to a

successful project.

72

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration here would improve all

functional aspects of the stream by restoring pattern, profile, and dimension; fencing livestock out of the channel; reducing erosion; and enhancing the riparian buffer. Restoration at this site would greatly improve the functionality of this stream.

Landowner Contact: Mr. Moses has been contacted regarding this program. It was not clear if Mr. Moses would be interested in participating in a project.

73

Photo 1: Upstream portion, looking downstream

Photo 2: Standing on the Gilbert B Crook Road crossing, looking upstream

UT to South Hominy #4 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 74

Photo 3: Standing on the Gilbert B Crook Road crossing, looking downstream

UT to South Hominy #4 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 75

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

76

77

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

12

Subwatershed: Upper South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft): Avg. Width (ft):

3,855

Sam’s Branch #2

Drainage Area (mi2): 0.36

Number of Parcels: 1

Bank Height Ratio: Unknown

Degree of Incision: Unknown

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: Unknown

Substrate: Unknown

Land Use: Forested

Estimated SMUs:

Restoration (ft):

Enhancement I (ft):

Existing Conditions:

2nd

Number of Landowners: 1

Sinuosity: Low

10 - 15

Stream Order:

Low

771

Enhancement II (ft):

Preservation (ft): 3,855

This site is located past the end of Sam’s Branch Road. The reach is the

headwater of Sam’s Branch. “Posted, No Trespassing” signs prevented any inspection or photography of the site. According to aerial photography, this is a steep mountain stream that is surrounded by forest.

Riparian Vegetation:

Because of its remote location, it is assumed that the vegetation surrounding this

site is primarily composed of native species.

Wetlands:

None/Unknown

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach:

It is assumed that this site is in a relatively

pristine condition and would be a candidate for preservation only.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Because of its forested nature, it is unlikely that any constraints on this site would pose a significant threat to a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

It is likely that this reach is fully

functional. Preservation here would prevent future degradation to this stream.

78

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

79

80

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

13

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft): 3,120 ft Avg. Width (ft): Varies: 3 - 20 ft

Curtis Creek #2

Drainage Area (mi2): 1.95

Number of Parcels: Sinuosity:

5 Low

Degree of Incision: Very incised in most places Depositional features:

Some

3,120

Existing Conditions:

2nd

Number of Landowners:

5

Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 1.5 - 3 Beltwidth:

Narrow beltwidth

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Residential, pasture, agricultural, and some forest Restoration (ft):

Stream Order:

Enhancement I (ft):

Estimated SMUs:

Enhancement II (ft):

3,120

Preservation (ft):

This site is located on Curtis Creek along Curtis Creek Road and on two

tributaries to Curtis Creek. The Curtis Creek reach runs through residential and agricultural areas and has virtually no riparian vegitation.

This reach is incised and over-wide.

Tributary 1 flows through

residential, agricultural, and some forested areas (Photos 3 and 4). This channel is very straight and currently functions as little more than a ditch. Tributary 2 is bordered by a field on the right bank and forest on the left bank. This stream is extremely incised, but has created bankfull benches in places.

Riparian Vegetation: The riparian buffers on these reaches generally vary between 0 and 25 feet wide. The exception to this is left bank of Tributary 2 where the riparian buffer is greater than 100 feet wide.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: All three of these reaches are candidates for full restoration. Furthermore, restoration of these tributaries is greatly needed. The pattern, profile, and dimension should be returned to a functional condition and riparian areas should be either established or enhanced.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Fence out livestock.

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints in this project reach include roads and homes. Two driveways and three homes are located within approximately 50 ft of Curtis Creek and Tributary 1. The agricultural land is also intensely utilized in this area. These constraints may limit restoration options at this site, especially in the downstream areas.

81

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat): Restoration here would improve all functional aspects of the stream by reducing erosion, allowing storm flows to access a floodplain, increasing bedform diversity, fencing out livestock, and enhancing the riparian buffer. This site has a very good potential for improvement.

82

Photo 1: Curtis Creek, looking upstream

Photo 2: Curtis Creek, looking upstream

Curtis Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 83

Photo 3: Downstream section of Tributary 1, looking upstream

Photo 4: Very straight section of Tributary 1, lined with conifers

Curtis Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 84

Photo 5: Tributary 2, looking upstream, note the left bankfull bench

Curtis Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 85

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

86

87

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

14

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft):

5,940

Warren Creek #2

Drainage Area (mi2): 0.81

Number of Parcels:

3

Sinuosity: Low

Avg. Width (ft): 15 – 20

Bank Height Ratio: Unknown

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: Unknown

Substrate: Unknown

Land Use: Forested

Estimated SMUs: Enhancement I (ft):

Existing Conditions:

2nd

Number of Landowners: 3

Degree of Incision: Unknown

Restoration (ft):

Stream Order:

Low

1,782

Enhancement II (ft): 2,970

Preservation (ft): 2,970

This site is located at the end of state maintained Warren Creek Road. This

reach is the headwater to Warren Creek. “Posted, No Trespassing” signs prevented a thorough inspection of the site. The only portion on the stream that was accessible to the public was the downstream portion, which crosses under Warren Creek Road (Photo 1). This is a steep mountain stream that is primarily surrounded by forest.

Riparian Vegetation:

Invasive plants were noted in the downstream portion of the reach during the

site visit. Though the upstream portion was not investigated, it is assumed to be in a more natural state.

Wetlands:

None/Unknown

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: From aerial photography, the downstream half of this reach appears to parallel a private driveway. Though the entire reach was not inspected, invasives were seen at the very downstream end and it is assumed that site disturbance along the driveway has introduced invasive plants. Stream improvements on this downstream portion would likely involve enhancement level II techniques through the removal of invasive plants. It is assumed that this will be a candidate for preservation because of its remote location.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): No significant constraints were noted during the site visit. It is unlikely that there are any constraints on this site which would pose a significant threat to a successful project.

88

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Enhancement II and preservation

here would improve habitat by enhancing the riparian buffer and preserving the stream from future degradation.

89

Photo 1: Downstream end of the site looking upstream from Warren Creek Road.

Warren Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2006 90

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

91

92

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

15

Drainage Area (mi2): 1.17

Subwatershed: Northern Coves Reach Length (ft): Avg. Width (ft):

2,220

Number of Parcels: Sinuosity:

20

Low

Degree of Incision: Very incised in most places Depositional features:

Few

Land Use: Mowed field and forest Restoration (ft): 2,220

Existing Conditions:

UT to South Hominy Creek #1

Enhancement I (ft):

2

Stream Order:

Number of Landowners:

3rd 2

Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 2 – 3 Beltwidth:

Narrow beltwidth

Substrate: Sand and gravel Estimated SMUs:

2,220

Enhancement II (ft):

Preservation (ft):

This site is located on an unnamed tributary to South Hominy Creek along Kile

Road off of Carolina Mountain Drive. The stream has been straightened, is very incised, and flows primarily through fields. The upstream 350 feet of this reach is adjacent to Pisgah Hwy and has recently been disturbed by major road construction (Photos 1 and 2). This short section is extremely incised. The downstream sections of this stream were not accessible without violating “No Trespassing” signs. However, from a distance this section appears to be incised and straightened. It runs through a field and has a limited riparian buffer (Photos 3 and 4).

Riparian Vegetation: The riparian buffer on this project reach generally varies between 10 and 30 feet wide. The exception to this is the right bank on the downstream section where the riparian buffer is greater than 100 feet wide for approximately 650 stream feet. Invasives are growing in the riparian buffers throughout the project reach.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach:

This stream is a candidate for full restoration

throughout its length. Furthermore, restoration of this stream is greatly needed. Restoration options on the upstream 350 feet are limited because of the number of constraints. The downstream section would be a more traditional restoration project. Earthwork should be a consideration at this site due to constraints

Potential BMP Opportunities: None

93

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): The main constraints on this project reach are located on the upstream section near the Pisgah Hwy crossing. Constraints in this area include homes, roads, and earthwork.

These constraints make restoration unlikely on this short section.

Fewer

constraints are located in the lower sections of the project. If constraints in the upstream 350 feet prove to be prohibitive, this may still be a viable site with 1870 stream feet left in the downstream reach.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat): Restoration here would improve water quality, hydrology and habitat by reducing erosion, allowing storm flows to access a floodplain, increasing bedform diversity, enhancing the riparian buffer, and possibly fencing livestock out of the stream.

94

Photo 1: Upstream section by SR 151, looking upstream

Photo 2: Upstream section by SR 151, looking downstream

UT to South Hominy #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 95

Photo 3: Looking toward the middle section of the project reach

Photo 4: Looking toward the middle section of the project reach

UT to South Hominy #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 96

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

97

98

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

16

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek

Curtis Creek #1

Drainage Area (mi2): 2.72

Reach Length (ft): 3,115

Number of Parcels:

Avg. Width (ft): 20 - 30

Sinuosity: Very Low

6

Stream Order: 3rd

Number of Landowners: Bank Height Ratio: 1.6

Degree of Incision: Moderately incised

Beltwidth:

Depositional features:

Substrate: Sand and gravel

None

Land Use: Mowed fields and residential Restoration (ft): 2,465

Existing Conditions:

Enhancement I (ft):

6

Narrow beltwidth

Estimated SMUs: Enhancement II (ft): 650

2,725 Preservation (ft):

This site is located on Curtis Creek along Curtis Creek Road. Generally, the

project reaches have been straightened, run through mowed fields, and have no riparian buffers (Photos 3 and 4). A short tributary is included in this site. The area around this tributary is currently under development and has recently been channelized. Currently, the stream banks along this tributary have no vegetation (Photo 1). Because of public access restraints, the upstream section was not investigated but from aerial photography this section appears to be in a similar condition as the rest. Access to the downstream portion of this project site was also limited but observations made from the road and through aerial photography indicate that this reach is in a somewhat more stable condition (Photo 2). Riparian enhancement and isolated stream bank stabilization may be appropriate for this section.

Riparian Vegetation:

As is obvious through the aerial photography, there is no riparian buffer along

most of this reach. The downstream section does have a buffer that varies between 0 and 60 feet wide. Invasives are common in this downstream section.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach:

This is a classic restoration project on a

straightened and incised channel that runs through fields with little or no riparian buffer. Restoration in the form of re-establishing functional pattern, profile, dimension, and riparian buffers would be appropriate. The downstream section is more sinuous and has some riparian buffer. This portion of the project may be suitable for enhancement level II improvements.

Potential BMP Opportunities: None

99

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Few constraints are present in this project reach. Driveway road crossings and a few utility lines would have to be considered. Access is easy and little earthwork would be involved.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat): Restoration here would improve all functional aspects of the stream by reducing erosion, allowing storm flows to access a floodplain, increasing bedform diversity, and restoring a functional riparian buffer. Because of the condition of the stream and lack of riparian buffer, the potential for improvement here is excellent.

Landowner Contact: Mr. Blazer was contacted and is not interested in the program at this time. Velda Morgan (82) is elderly and in the process of selling her land. Her real estate agent was contacted (Cindy Revis, 442-0034) and they may be amenable to selling part of the property near the creek for the program. Nick Antonov (90) lives in Portland but his father and sister-in-law live on the property. Mr. Antonov was initially interested but later said that he had changed his mind and was no longer interested. Ken Myers (83) is interested in the project. Micky Hinson (88) has been noncommittal up to this point.

100

Photo 1: Tributary in the area under construction, looking downstream

Photo 2: Downstream section of Curtis Creek with some riparian buffer, looking upstream

Curtis Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 101

Photo 3: Middle of the project reach, looking upstream

Photo 4: Middle of the project reach, looking downstream

Curtis Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 102

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

103

104

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

17

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft):

2,400

Drainage Area (mi2): 4.03

Number of Parcels: Sinuosity: Low

Avg. Width (ft): 30 - 35

Glady Fork #1

4

Stream Order:

Number of Landowners: Bank Height Ratio:

Degree of Incision: Varies: None - high

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: Embedded

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Fallow field, pasture, and residential Restoration (ft): 2,400

Existing Conditions:

Enhancement I (ft):

3

Varies: 1 – 2

Low

Estimated SMUs: Enhancement II (ft):

3rd

2,400 Preservation (ft):

This site is located on Glady Fork along Upper Glady Fork Road and includes

850 feet of an unnamed tributary to Glady Fork. The mainstem flows through pastureland and mowed fields. It has been channelized and is incised. Fill dirt has been placed on the right floodplain and more material has been deposited on the banks at the upstream mainstem portion of this site (Photo 1). The mainstem is a somewhat typical restoration reach. The tributary is 850 feet long and runs through a more residential area. This stream has also been channelized and is incised. Parts of the bank have been reinforced with walls and a 300 foot section flows through a culvert. This site is contiguous with Glady Fork #2.

Riparian Vegetation:

Riparian buffers throughout this project reach are minimal and vary in width

between nonexistent and one tree wide.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Stream improvements at this site should involve restoration throughout the entire length. The 850 foot long tributary that is located in a residential area has significant constraints along with anticipated landowner requirements. These issues may make restoration on this reach unlikely. However, this reach should still be proposed because of the need. The mainstem is a more traditional restoration site. It is straightened, incised, runs through pastureland, and has a limited riparian buffer.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

105

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints near this site include roads, road crossings, a culverted section of stream, an equipment staging area, a vegetable plot, and several structures. The majority of these constraints are located adjacent to the 850 foot tributary making restoration on this section unlikely. However, constraints on the remaining 1550 feet of the mainstem are few. This mainstem reach may be short but is a more typical restoration reach.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration here would improve all

functional aspects of the stream by restoring pattern, profile, and dimension; stabilizing the banks; allowing the stream access to its floodplain; day-lighting the stream; and enhancing the riparian buffer. Work done at this site would greatly improve the functionality of this stream.

Landowner Contact:

Charles Heron and Sue Palmer (32 and 98) are generally not interested in the

program but may be open to options. Charles and Joyce Warren (30) are not interested in the program and have a history with DOT taking their land. Katherine Davis (Don Davis Heirs 31) is not interested in the project. Contact with this landowner has been through her brother Charles Davis. He has issues about disrupting views and rights within the easement.

106

Photo 1: Glady Fork from the bridge on the upstream project boundary

Photo 2: Looking across at the downstream portion of Glady Fork

Glady Fork #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2007 107

Photo3: Looking upstream from the Upper Glady Fork Road Bridge

Glady Fork #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2007 108

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

109

110

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

18

Subwatershed: Lower South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft): 2,520

UT to South Hominy #2

Drainage Area (mi2): 0.42

Number of Parcels:

6

Stream Order:

2nd

Number of Landowners:

5

Avg. Width (ft): Varies: 10 – 15 Sinuosity: Low to Moderate Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 1 – 2 Degree of Incision: Varies

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: Embedded

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Pasture and forested

Estimated SMUs:

Narrow

2,022

Restoration (ft): 1,690

Enhancement I (ft):

Enhancement II (ft): 830

Preservation (ft):

Existing Conditions:

This site is located on two unnamed streams to South Hominy Creek along

Fowler Mountain Road off of Pisgah Hwy. The shorter reach is somewhat forested and sinuous and is in relatively good condition. The longer mainstem reach varies in condition from straightened and very incised to aggraded sinuous and even braided.

Riparian Vegetation: The riparian buffers on this project reach vary between 0 and over 100 feet wide. The downstream reach on the mainstem has no riparian buffer and runs through a fallow field. Invasives are growing in the riparian areas.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Stream improvements at this site should include a combination of enhancement level II and restoration practices. Improvements on the shorter tributary and downstream section of the mainstem may involve just enhancement level II. Though the downstream end of the mainstem reach appears to be quite degraded, simply planting a riparian buffer may be the best solution.

However, on the upstream reaches of the mainstem full restoration practices should be

employed because of the degree of incision.

Potential BMP Opportunities: Fence cattle out of the stream.

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Several constraints are located near this site including a pond, utility lines, structures, and a well. Overall, constraints are few and should not be a great deterrent to implementing a successful project.

111

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Some sections on this site are in

more need of restoration than others. Restoration work at this site would improve all functional aspects of the stream by reducing erosion, allowing storm flows to access a floodplain, increasing bedform diversity, and enhancing the riparian buffer.

112

Photo 1: Upstream mainstem reach where the stream is incised

Photo 2: Upstream mainstem reach where the stream is incised, looking downstream

UT to South Hominy #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 113

Photo 3: Mainstem reach at the driveway crossing off of Fowler Mountain Road, looking downstream

Photo 4: The downstream section of the mainstem reach, looking downstream

UT to South Hominy #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 114

Photo 5: Short tributary reach where Enhancement II is proposed, looking upstream

UT to South Hominy #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 115

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

116

117

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

19

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek

Drainage Area (mi2): 1.75

Reach Length (ft): 2,345

Number of Parcels:

Avg. Width (ft):

Sinuosity:

20 - 25

Curtis Creek #3

6

Low

Stream Order:

Number of Landowners: Bank Height Ratio: Beltwidth:

Depositional features:

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Residential, mowed fields, and some forest Restoration (ft): 1,995

Existing Conditions:

Enhancement I (ft):

Narrow beltwidth

Estimated SMUs:

Enhancement II (ft): 350

3

2

Degree of Incision: Very incised in most places Few

2nd

2,135

Preservation (ft):

This site is located on Curtis Creek along Curtis Creek Road. The upstream 350

feet is forested and is in relatively good condition. The remainder of the project is in need of more intensive restoration. The middle portion of the project reach is residential, runs through the front yards of two homes, and closely parallels Curtis Creek Road. The downstream portion flows through a mowed field.

Riparian Vegetation: The riparian buffer on the upper reach of Curtis creek varies from approximately 35 to over 60 feet wide. This buffer is in relatively good shape but may benefit from some invasive removal.

Further downstream, the buffer narrows to virtually nonexistent with only mowed grass

stabilizing the banks in most sections.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach:

The upstream 350 feet may benefit from

enhancement level II improvements by enhancing the riparian buffer and isolated areas of bank stabilization. The rest of the project reach should receive full scale restoration, returning a functional pattern, profile, dimension, and riparian buffer. This site would greatly benefit from restoration.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

None

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): The most significant constraint at this site is the fact that the stream runs through the front yard of two homes and flows within 35 feet of Curtis Creek Road. The area around this section is mowed and carefully landscaped (Photos 2 and 3). Unfortunately,

118

this section is in the middle of the project reach and will likely pose a significant threat to the implementation of a restoration project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat): Enhancement and restoration here would improve all functional aspects of this stream by reducing erosion, allowing storm flows to access a floodplain, increasing bedform diversity, and enhancing the riparian buffer. This project reach is in great need of restoration.

119

Photo 1: Upstream forested section, looking downstream

Photo 2: Middle residential section, looking downstream

Curtis Creek #3 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 120

Photo 3: Middle residential section, looking upstream

Photo 4: Downstream section in mowed field, looking downstream

Curtis Creek #3 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 121

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

122

123

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

20

Subwatershed: Beaverdam Creek Reach Length (ft):

3,705

Beaverdam Creek #2

Drainage Area (mi2): 6.38 Stream Order: Number of Parcels:

4

Number of Landowners:

Sinuosity: Low

Avg. Width (ft): 30 - 40

3rd 4

Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 1 – 2

Degree of Incision: Varies: Moderate - None

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: None

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Agriculture, mowed fields, pasture, and forested

Low

Estimated SMUs:

Enhancement II (ft):

3,705

Restoration (ft): 3,705

Enhancement I (ft):

Preservation (ft):

Existing Conditions:

This site is located on Beaverdam Creek along Beaverdam Road. Most of the

right bank is bordered by R. and V. Warren Farms, an old tomato farm (Photo 1). In the upstream portion, horses have direct access to the stream (Photo 3 and 4). In these areas the stream is less incised but the channel is trampled, lacks bedform diversity, and has no riparian buffer. In the downstream portion of the site the stream has been straightened, is incised, and lacks an adequate riparian buffer.

Riparian Vegetation:

The riparian buffers on this project reach vary in width between nonexistent and

one tree wide. There are short isolated areas with wider buffers. In the upstream portion where horses access the stream there is no riparian buffer. There is potential for an additional 300 feet of riparian restoration in the upstream portion where only one side of the creek is contained within the project boundary.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach:

Work done at this site should involve full

restoration. In most places the stream has been straightened and is incised. A functional pattern, profile, dimension, and riparian buffers should be returned to the stream.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

This site offers several opportunities for BMPs. A retention pond or

swale should be built to treat agricultural runoff from the tomato farm. Cars, equipment, and the mixing station should be removed from the bank. Livestock should be fenced out of the stream.

124

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints near this site include roads, road crossings, power lines, an equipment staging area, and structures. Several greenhouses are located within 50 feet of the stream. These constraints are moderate in scope and should pose a slight threat to a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration here would improve all

functional aspects of the stream by restoring pattern profile, and dimension; fencing livestock out of the channel; reducing erosion; and enhancing the riparian buffer. Water quality would be further enhanced by moving the mixing station and equipment away from the stream and fencing livestock out of the streams. Restoration at this site would greatly improve the functionality of this stream.

125

Photo 1: Looking across the old tomato farm toward the stream

Photo 2: Looking downstream at incision

Beaverdam Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 126

Photo 3: Looking upstream toward where the horses have access to the stream

Photo 4: Looking further upstream to where the horses have access to the stream

Beaverdam Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 127

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

128

129

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

21

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft):

2,760

Morgan Branch #2

Drainage Area (mi2): 0.94

Number of Parcels: 5

Number of Landowners:

Sinuosity: Low

Avg. Width (ft): 15 – 20

Bank Height Ratio:

Degree of Incision: Very

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: Embedded

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Pasture, forested, and fallow field

2nd

Stream Order: 5 2

Low

Estimated SMUs:

2,073

Restoration (ft): 700

Enhancement I (ft): 2,060 Enhancement II (ft):

Preservation (ft):

Existing Conditions:

This site is located on Morgan Branch along Morgan Hill Road. The majority of

the site flows through pastureland and mowed fields. Livestock have access to sections of the stream. In these areas there is little to no riparian buffers and the stream is incised, unstable, and lacks bedform diversity. The remainder of the site flows through forested areas that are heavily populated with invasive species. These areas could not be inspected without trespassing. However, by viewing these reaches from the road and by looking at aerial photography it is assumed that these sections have been straightened and are incised.

Riparian Vegetation:

Riparian buffers on this project reach vary in width between nonexistent and

over 100 feet wide. The riparian buffers on more than half of the project reach are one tree width or less. Buffers are heavily populated with invasive species.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Stream improvements at this site should involve a mix of restoration and enhancement level I practices. The upstream 700 feet would benefit from restoration. Stream improvements on the downstream 2,070 feet should be in the form of enhancement level I. For the most part the stream runs through fields, so design and construction should be relatively straight forward. The downstream reach is severely incised. Constructing a bankfull bench here would involve significant grading.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Livestock should be fenced out of the stream.

130

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints near this site include roads, road crossings, and structures. These constraints may be a moderate consideration to the implementation of a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration here would improve all

functional aspects of the stream by restoring pattern, profile, and dimension; fencing livestock out of the channel; reducing erosion; removing invasives; and enhancing the riparian buffer. Work done at this site would greatly improve the functionality of this stream.

131

Photo 1: The middle portion of the project reach

Photo 2: The middle portion of the project reach

Morgan Branch #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2007 132

Photo3: Looking across at the upstream portion of the project reach

Morgan Branch #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2007 133

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

134

135

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

22

Drainage Area (mi2):

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek Stream Order:

nd

Mainstem 2 / Headwater 1

Reach Length (ft): 2,960 Avg. Width (ft): Varies: 10 – 20

Ballard Creek

Number of Parcels: 4 Sinuosity:

Number of Landowners: Low

Degree of Incision: Varies: not incised to very incised Depositional features: Embedded

Bank Height Ratio:

Beltwidth:

2

Varies: 1 - 2

Narrow beltwidth

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Forested, pasture, residential, and mowed field Restoration (ft): 900

Mainstem 0.93 / Headwater 0.22

st

Enhancement I (ft):

Estimated SMUs: 1,404

Enhancement II (ft): 460

Preservation (ft): 1,600

Existing Conditions: This site is located on Ballard Creek along Black Oak Cove Road. A 2,060 foot reach on Ballard Creek and a 900 foot reach on an unnamed tributary to Ballard Creek make up this project site. Ballard Creek is somewhat forested and fairly stable. Incision in the Ballard Creek reach varies from not incised to moderately incised. The unnamed tributary to Ballard Creek been straightened, runs through a field where cattle are not fenced out (Photo 3), and is piped through a culvert under Black Oak Cove Road and beyond for approximately 50 additional feet (Photo 4).

Riparian Vegetation: The riparian buffer on Ballard Creek varies from 0 to greater than 100 feet wide. The tributary has virtually no riparian buffer and flows through a cow pasture and mowed field until the last downstream 150 feet where the tributary confluences with Ballard Creek.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: On the Ballard Creek reach, enhancement level II practices such as sloping banks and restoring the riparian buffer may be appropriate in the downstream sections. Preservation would be appropriate for the upstream portion of Ballard Creek. On the unnamed tributary to Ballard Creek stream improvements should involve full restoration including restoring pattern, profile, and dimension as well as planting a riparian buffer and fencing out the cattle. The stream should also be returned to daylight through the 50 foot section that is currently piped.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Fencing out cattle from the unnamed tributary will improve water

quality.

136

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints at this site include the Black Oak Cove Road crossing, several structures near the unnamed tributary, and the pond adjacent to the unnamed tributary. The pond and several of the structures are located less than 30 feet from the tributary and will likely limit restoration options. The constraints on this project site will require significant consideration.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat): Enhancement and restoration here would improve all functional aspects of the stream by reducing erosion, allowing storm flows to access a floodplain, increasing bedform diversity, keeping cattle out of the stream, and restoring a functional riparian buffer. Restoration on the tributary has a great potential for stream improvement. However, this is a short reach with many constraints. The remainder of this site is in less need of stream improvements.

137

Photo 1: Ballard Creek at Cumbres Drive, looking upstream

Photo 2: Tributary to Ballard Creek, looking upstream

Ballard Creek South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 138

Photo 3: Culvert connection on the tributary below the road crossing

Photo 4: Tributary to Ballard Creek where the stream is culverted beyond the road crossing, looking downstream

Ballard Creek South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 139

Photo 5: Tributary downstream from the culverted section, looking downstream

Ballard Creek South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 140

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

141

142

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

23

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft): 1,960 Avg. Width (ft):

Warren Creek #1

Drainage Area (mi2): 3.67

Number of Parcels:

6

Number of Landowners:

Sinuosity: Low

30 - 35

Beltwidth:

Degree of Incision: Varies: None to Moderately

3rd

Stream Order: 3

Bank Height Ratio: 1 – 1.3 Low

Substrate: Sand, grave, cobble, bedrock

Depositional features: Bar formation Land Use: Pasture, and residential

Estimated SMUs:

1,960

Restoration (ft): 1,960

Enhancement I (ft):

Enhancement II (ft):

Preservation (ft):

Existing Conditions:

This site is located on Warren Creek and parallels Warren Creek Road. The

stream flows mostly through pastureland. No livestock were seen that had access to the creak at the time of inspection. The stream has been straightened and is somewhat incised. There is bedrock at the downstream end that holds the grade (Photo 1). A pond has recently been constructed near the stream (Photos 3 and 4).

Riparian Vegetation:

The riparian buffer in this reach varies from nonexistent to one tree wide.

Invasive plant species are present throughout the reach.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Stream improvements throughout this site should involve restoration level work. The stream has been straightened and is incised. The riparian buffer is also impaired. Improvements at this site should involve reestablishing pattern, profile, and dimension as well as enhancing the riparian buffer.

If possible, the stream should be moved away from Warren

Creek Road.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Several significant constraints exist on this project site. Warren Creek Road parallels the stream for approximately 500 feet and comes within 30 feet of the channel. A pond has recently been excavated next to the stream. Several structures are also

143

located near the stream and a number of driveways cross over the channel. These constraints present a moderate threat to the likelihood of a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration at this site has the

potential to improve all functional aspects of the stream. The channel is not terribly incised and unstable even though it appears that livestock do not have access to the stream. Therefore, the potential for improvement here is good but not great.

144

Photo 1: Standing at the downstream portion, looking upstream

Photo 2: Looking across at the downstream section from Warren Road

Warren Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2006 145

Photo 3: The recently constructed pond

Photo 4: The recently constructed pond

Warren Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2006 146

Photo 5: Looking upstream at depositional features

Photo 6: Looking upstream at the upstream portion

Warren Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2006 147

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

148

149

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

24

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft): 2,370 Avg. Width (ft): 20

Drainage Area (mi2): 0.49

Number of Parcels: Sinuosity:

UT to Curtis Creek #2

Low

4

Stream Order:

Number of Landowners: Bank Height Ratio: Beltwidth:

Depositional features:

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Forested, and residential Restoration (ft): 1,100

Narrow beltwidth

Estimated SMUs:

Enhancement I (ft):

Enhancement II (ft):

4

Varies: 1 - >2

Degree of Incision: Varies: not incised - very incised Embedded

1st

1,354

Preservation (ft): 1270

Existing Conditions: This site is located on the headwaters of Curtis Creek along Curtis Creek Road. The middle section of the site, below the Curtis Creek Road crossing, is incised with banks up to eight feet high. There is a headcut on this section that is approximately six feet high. The upstream and downstream reaches become more forested and less incised. It appears as if this stream originates within the identified project parcels. An investigation of the upstream extent of the stream was not conducted therefore, the length of preservation is also unknown.

Riparian Vegetation:

The riparian buffer on this reach of Curtis Creek varies greatly from 0 to over

100 feet wide. Invasives are common in the middle portion of the project site.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach:

The upstream and downstream sections of this

project reach are in good condition and may be suitable for preservation. The middle portion is incised, straightened, and lacks an adequate riparian buffer. Stream improvements on this portion should include restoration practices.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Minimize sediment from adjacent gravel roads.

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Constraints at this site are considerable including roads, homes, earthwork, and utility lines. Curtis Creek Road parallels the stream frequently coming within 30 feet of the channel. Several structures are also located within 30 feet of the channel. These constraints are significant and lessen the likelihood of successful implementation.

150

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat): Enhancement and restoration here would improve all functional aspects of the stream by reducing erosion, allowing stormflows to access the floodplain, increasing bedform diversity, reducing erosion, and enhancing the riparian buffer. The middle section has more potential for improvement than the rest. Overall, this site has a moderate potential for improvement.

151

Photo 1: Upstream section, looking upstream

Photo 2: Upstream section, looking downstream

UT to Curtis Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 152

Photo 3: Above the road crossing, looking upstream. Note the road constraint.

Photo 4: Headcut, looking upstream

UT to Curtis Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 153

Photo 5: Looking downstream at incision and a structure near the stream

Photo 6: Downstream section, looking downstream

UT to Curtis Creek #2 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 154

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

155

156

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

25

Subwatershed: Middle South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft):

2,180

Drainage Area (mi2):

Number of Parcels: Sinuosity:

Avg. Width (ft): 15 - 25

Morgan Branch #1

5*

Low – Moderate Beltwidth:

Degree of Incision: Very incised

1.24

Number of Landowners Bank Height Ratio:

Substrate: Sand and gravel

Land Use: Forested and mowed field

Estimated SMUs: 1,453

Enhancement I (ft): 1,453

3rd

4* 3

Moderate beltwidth

Depositional features: Embedded

Restoration (ft):

Stream Order:

Enhancement II (ft):

Preservation (ft):

*Depending on how the property lines are defined, this project may encompass more parcels.

Existing Conditions: This site is located on Morgan Branch and parallels South Morgan Branch Road. The stream has been moved over to the side of the valley and now comes within 40 feet of South Morgan Branch Road in places. The stream is very incised, lacks bedform diversity, and is mostly riffles (Photo 2). The channel is bordered by a mowed field on the right bank (Photo 4). Channel embeddedness was noted.

Riparian Vegetation:

The left bank, by South Morgan Branch Road, has a moderately functioning

riparian buffer. Trees are present and the buffer width varies from 40 to 100 feet. The slope from the road to the stream is very steep. On the right bank the riparian buffer is narrower varying from one tree wide to approximately 35 feet in width. Beyond this riparian buffer is a mowed grass field.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach:

The incision and channelization present in this

reach calls for enhancement I through adjusting pattern, dimension, and enhancing the riparian buffer. Because of the degree of incision earthwork will be a consideration at this site.

Potential BMP Opportunities: Erosion control on the steep left hillside by South Morgan Branch Road may decrease sedimentation and resulting channel embeddedness. Sediment and pollutant control from nearby dirt roads via ponds and or retention basins may also alleviate embeddedness.

157

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): The largest constraint at this site is the amount of earthwork required to allow the stream access to its floodplain. However, the adjacent field offers a close location for spreading spoil. Other constraints include the proximity of South Morgan Branch Road, the Valley Market Gas Station, the Blackfoot Trail bridge, and power lines that run through the adjacent mowed field.

These constraints pose a moderate consideration when considering the

likelihood of a successful project.

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat): Enhancement I here would improve all functional aspects of the stream by reducing erosion, allowing storm flows to access a floodplain, increasing bedform diversity, and restoring a functional riparian buffer.

Because of the degree of

incision at this site, the potential for improvement is good.

158

Photo 1: Downstream section by the Valley Market Gas Station, looking upstream

Photo 2: Upstream from the Valley Market Gas Station, looking downstream

Morgan Branch #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 159

Photo 3: the Blackfoot Trail Road crossing, looking upstream

Photo 4: land use at the Blackfoot Trail Road crossing, looking downstream (the stream is on the left)

Morgan Branch #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 160

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

161

162

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

26

Subwatershed: Lower South Hominy Valley

South Hominy Creek #1

Drainage Area (mi2): South Hominy 38.3/Beaverdam 8.15

South Hominy 4th/Beaverdam 3rd

Stream Order: Reach Length (ft):

4,780

Avg. Width (ft): 35 - 80 ft

Number of Parcels:

7

Sinuosity: Moderate

Number of Landowners: 5 Bank Height Ratio: Varies: 1.5 – 2

Degree of Incision: Varies: Moderate - Very

Beltwidth:

Depositional features: Some embeddedness

Substrate: Sand, gravel, cobble

Land Use: Mowed fields, pasture, residential, and forested Enhancement I (ft):

Restoration (ft):

Existing Conditions:

Moderate

Estimated SMUs:

Enhancement II (ft): 4,780

1,912

Preservation (ft):

This site is located on South Hominy Creek and Beaverdam Creek, between

Beaverdam Road and Pisgah Road. Beaverdam Creek is a tributary to South Hominy. The South Hominy reach is on a large creek with isolated areas in need of bank stabilization (Photo 3). The aerial photograph shows an active oxbow bypass channel. The Beaverdam reach is on a smaller stream but still has a rather large drainage area of 8.15 square miles (Photo 5). This reach is incised and has established a new bankfull bench in sections.

Riparian Vegetation: The riparian buffer widths on this project reach vary between 0 and over 100 feet. There are invasive plant species growing throughout the buffers.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach: Stream improvements at this site should involve enhancement level II practices. There are isolated sections where the banks need to be stabilized. The riparian buffers should also be enhanced through widening, removing invasives, and planting native species.

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): Several constraints are located near this site including roads, road crossings, power lines, and structures. These constraints present a moderate threat to the likelihood of being able to implement a successful project.

163

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Restoration here would improve

water quality and habitat by reducing erosion and enhancing the riparian buffer. Though enhancement would benefit this stream, compared to other reaches in the watershed, this site is not in critical need of restoration. Therefore, this project has a moderate potential for functional improvements.

164

Photo 1: Looking upstream on South Hominy at the active oxbow bypass channel

Photo 2: The South Hominy reach looking upstream

South Hominy Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 165

Photo 3: Bank instability on the South Hominy reach

Photo 4: The South Hominy reach looking upstream

South Hominy Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 166

Photo 5: The Beaverdam reach looking upstream. Note the bankfull bench on the right bank

South Hominy Creek #1 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs December 2006 167

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

168

169

EEP Project Preliminary Assessment Form Priority:

Site Name:

27

Subwatershed: Lower South Hominy Creek Reach Length (ft): Avg. Width (ft):

2,160

UT to South Hominy #5

Drainage Area (mi2): 0.45

Number of Parcels: Sinuosity: Low

15

1st

Number of Landowners: 4 Bank Height Ratio: 1 – 2

Beltwidth:

Degree of Incision: Varies: None to Very Depositional features: Embedded

5

Stream Order:

Low

Substrate: Sand, grave, cobble

Land Use: Forested, pasture, and residential

Estimated SMUs:

1,088

Restoration (ft):

Enhancement I (ft): 840

Enhancement II (ft): 1,320

Preservation (ft):

Existing Conditions:

This site parallels Upper Glady Fork Road at times coming within 30 feet of the

road. The stream flows through a fairly confined valley, a situation that is exasperated by the proximity of Upper Glady Fork Road. The site is contiguous with UT to South Hominy Creek #4 located directly downstream. Thus, a restoration project that pieces together adjacent landowners on both of these sites is possible. At this site, the section that is in the most need of improvement is the middle 400 feet of stream which is in pasture. The rest of the site is either less degraded or more confined.

Riparian Vegetation:

The riparian buffer on this reach varies from nonexistent to over 100 feet wide.

Invasive plant species are present throughout the site.

Wetlands:

None

Expected Restoration Type and General Approach:

Stream improvements on this site may include

enhancement level I and II practices. Restoration options are limited because of the confined valley. Enhancement level II type improvements may be appropriate for the forested areas (Photos 1 and 4) and Enhancement level I practices may be appropriate for the areas in pasture (Photos 2 and 3).

Potential BMP Opportunities:

Constraints (bridges, utilities, structures, natural areas): The major constraints on this site are the proximity of Upper Glady Fork Road and the degree of confinement in the valley. Less important constraints are the presence of several driveway crossings. These constraints pose a significant threat to the likelihood of a successful project.

170

Potential for Improvement (water quality, hydrology, habitat):

Improvements at this site have the

potential to enhance all functional aspects of the stream. Full restoration is not being proposed. The channel is not very incised or unstable and it appears that livestock do not have access to the stream. Therefore, the potential for improvement here is moderate.

171

Photo 1: The upstream reach looking downstream. This area is very confined by the valley.

Photo 2: The middle portion looking downstream where the stream is not as confined

UT to South Hominy #5 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2006 172

Photo 3: The middle portion looking upstream where the stream is not as confined

Photo 4: The downstream portion looking upstream

UT to South Hominy #5 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2006 173

Photo 5: The downstream portion looking downstream.

UT to South Hominy #5 South Hominy Stream Mitigation Opportunity Atlas

Photographs January 2006 174

NOTES ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

175