15 November 2021

Cully Hession
Professor of Biological Systems Engineering
204 Seitz Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Dear Dr. Hession:

Enclosed is a review of the technology for the project “Habitat Structures for Hellbenders in
Little Stony Creek”. This document contains vital information and technologies including:
background on hellbenders and their nesting preferences, design considerations for hellbender
nest configurations, potential designs, and standards to be followed in the process. In addition,
the technology review includes information from our brainstorming sessions, some challenges
we faced, a timeline of project checkpoints, and the responsibilities of group members. This
document has been reviewed by all members of the team and our advisors. We have neither
given nor received unauthorized assistance on this assignment.

Please contact us with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
The Stony Creek Hellbenders Team

Sophie Bosse Tyler Leeser Michael Snead

Enclosure: Technology Review

Habitat Structures for Hellbenders in Little
Stony Creek

Technology Review

Little Stony Creek Hellbenders

Sophie Bosse
Tyler Leeser
Michael Snead
Advisors
Zack Edwards
Sharyl Ogle
Emily Bock

November 13, 2021

BSE 4125 Comprehensive Senior Design
Introduction
The eastern hellbender salamander (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), also known
colloquially as a “mud devil”, “devil dog”, and “snot otter”, is a species of carnivorous, aquatic
salamander native to the Appalachian mountains in the eastern United States from Tennessee to
New York. They are the largest salamander in the US, with adults reaching up to 2 feet in length
and weighing more than 2 pounds (USDA-NRCS TN-07 2020). Hellbenders have seen a decline
in population recently due to poor water quality and lack of adequate habitat. Because of this, the
Virginia Department of WIldlife Resources lists eastern hellbenders as a “species of greatest
conservation need” (VA DWR 2021). Their need for well-oxygenated, clean water makes
hellbenders an effective indicator organism, allowing their presence to act as a representation of
a stream’s water quality. One step towards bringing the species back from their decline is
designing and implementing effective hellbender nest configurations in streams across the
region.
One such stream is Little Stony Creek, a tributary in the New River watershed that runs
through Pembroke, Virginia. The site for this project is located 2.5 miles downstream of the
USFS Cascades Conservation Area, where known populations of hellbenders exist. An ongoing
streambank stabilization project at the site will narrow the channel where it has eroded from
anthropogenic causes, which will decrease suspended sediment transport and increase water
velocities. Both of these factors improve habitat for hellbenders and make this site a prime
location for habitat structure placement.
Our team will design hellbender habitat structures to place in Little Stony Creek that
ensure the greatest likelihood of habitation and survival. In order to improve habitat for the
hellbender salamanders, the needs of the salamander and the physical aspects of the environment
must be considered. The habitats will appear natural in their environment and meet the size
requirements of a single hellbender. They must also resist sediment build-up and withstand peak
storm flows to minimize maintenance and increase longevity.
This technology review provides background information necessary to develop
hellbender habitat structures. It highlights the primary needs and preferences of the hellbender
salamanders, examines some potential solutions for habitat structures, addresses design storms,
and looks at design standards that could be applied to the construction and implementation of the
nests.
Review of Technology
Providing and maintaining adequate habitat for Eastern Hellbenders is imperative to their
continued survival. Understanding the habitat and nest structure preferences of hellbenders has
been the focus of many studies. It is crucial to understand what habitats best support hellbender
populations to be able to create and protect similar habitats. A major cause of hellbender
declines is loss of habitat due to sedimentation from increasing development (Wheeler et al.
2003). Efficiently increasing viable hellbender habitat would help conserve the species.
Compiling findings from multiple studies has led to the identification of important habitat
characteristics that promote the best overall environment for hellbender salamanders. Suitable
hellbender habitat consists of clear, fast-flowing, well-oxygenated streams and rivers
(USDA-NRCS TN-07 2020) with large to medium sized rocks, deep pools, and fast flowing
riffles (Hillis and Bellis 1971). It is likely for hellbenders to prefer streams with an average flow
velocity between 1-2 m/s (3.28-6.56 ft/s), an average temperature between 49 and 54 degrees
Fahrenheit (9-12 degrees Celsius), and minimal human impacts in the surrounding area
(Messerman 2014). Humphries and Pauley conducted a Hellbender population study and found
that the average water depth that Hellbenders were captured in was 32.6 cm, with a range of
16-56cm (2005). They also estimated that Hellbender salamanders have an average home range
of 198 square meters. Additionally Hellbenders were never found sharing a nest with another
salamander, and were found using the same nest that had previously been used by another
salamander once out of 29 salamanders observed. Pugh et al. concluded that the physical and
chemical characteristics of upstream land use and amount of upstream forest are strong
indicators of hellbender occupancy due to their effect on water quality (2015). Even subtle
changes in the surrounding watershed that cause changes in stream properties are likely to
influence hellbender populations. It has also been noted that larval hellbender salamanders are
unable to burrow under substrate that is at least 50% embedded (Unger et al. 2020). In the wild
it has been observed that hellbenders construct the entrances to their nests facing downstream
(Pfingsten and Downs 1989). The percentage of large rock, availability of interstitial spaces
under large rocks, and the total number of rocks larger than 500 mm are thought to be the most
important limiting factors to Hellbender habitat (Da Silva Neto et al 2019, Pugh et al 2015,
Humphries and Pauley 2005).
 Four possible solutions for creating additional adult hellbender nesting habitat at our site
in Little Stony Creek are boot-shaped nest boxes, hydrodynamic nest boxes, boulder clusters, and
slab rock configurations. While the implementation of one type of hellbender habitat structure to
a stream has proven effective (Briggler and Ackerson 2012, Piecuch 2016), it is also possible that
adding habitat for multiple stages of salamander development as well as habitat for hellbender
prey would be a more holistic and natural approach to hellbender habitat restoration
(USDA-NRCS TN-07 2020).

Boot-shaped Nest Boxes

Boot-shaped nest boxes (rectangular nest boxes) are man-made concrete structures. They
consist of a large hollow rectangular chamber with an elongated rectangular tunnel leading into
the chamber (Figure 1, below). Boot-shaped nest boxes were first designed and utilized in
Missouri where they were successful in recruiting hellbender inhabitants (Briggler and Ackerson
2012). Messerman studied similar boot-shaped nests in North Carolina but did not have the
same success (2014). None of the 54 nest boxes became inhabited over the four-month
observation period of the project. Possible limitations of this study were low water flow within
the box leading to sedimentation, too small of an interior for desired adult hellbender usage, and
the abundance of other quality hellbender nesting habitat nearby. It has been recommended that
nest boxes must resist filling with sediment or being moved by high stream flows. It has been
found that manually removing sediment from nest box entrances every 40 days is adequate to
keep the entrance unblocked 75% of the time, and 40lb nest boxes are 23% less likely to be
dislodged than 25lb nest boxes (Button et al 2020). Assuming similar stream site size as
Messerman, our site would require 8-10 nest box structures (2014). Replicating the construction
design of Messerman, it would cost $80-120 for the materials of each structure. This cost
estimate derived from the pricing from generic hardware retailers. The structures are light
enough to be installed by hand, so there would be little installation cost, making the overall cost
of this solution $640-$1,200.
 Figure 1. Left: Top view of boot-shaped nest box design (York 2016). Right: Boot-shaped nest
box structures ready for stream placement (Messerman 2014).

Hydrodynamic Nest Boxes

The hydrodynamic nest box (Hydrodynamic boxes, Boot-shaped nest box redesign), a
man-made concrete structure, was designed as a hydraulically streamlined version of the
boot-shaped nest box. The upstream face of this nest box is a rounded point, approximating a
parabolic curve, and the downstream face is narrower and flat, containing the entrance
(Mohammed et al. 2016). The shape of this nest box directs flowlines around the structure so
that they rejoin downstream, and any eddies that might cause sedimentation do not occur at the
entrance to the nest (Mohammed et al. 2016). York predicted that the hydrodynamic nest box
would be more resistant to flow than the boot-shaped nest box. Mohammed et al.’s calculations
showed motion occuring for boot-shaped boxes at flows of 1.25 m/s (4.10 ft/s), while movement
is not expected for hydrodynamic boxes until flows reach 5.87 m/s (19.25 ft/s). Assuming
similar stream site size as Messerman, our site would require 8-10 nest box structures (2014).
Replicating the construction design of Mohammed et al., the materials needed to construct each
nest box would cost $100-$200. This cost estimate derived from the pricing from generic
hardware retailers. The box and lid are separate pieces, and each is light enough to be installed
by hand, so there would be little installation cost, making the overall cost of this solution
$800-$2,000.
 Figure 2. Left: Top view of a hydrodynamic box structure design. Right: Photographs of a
constructed hydrodynamic nest box (Mohammed et al. 2016).

Boulder Cluster Configurations

Boulder clusters are natural stones that are placed into a stream in a specific pattern in
order to create a desired hydraulic effect. Placement of boulder clusters creates a diversity of
water depth, substrate, and velocity, which leads to an increase in habitat diversity
(Saldi-Caromile et al. 2004). They provide interstitial spaces, deep water, air bubbles, and
turbulence (EMRRP 2000). In addition to fish, the habitat provided by boulders provides refuge
and reproductive habitat for a variety of organisms. Boulders should be sized so that they are
immoble at the design flow, which at a minimum should be a 50-year flow (Saldi-Caromile et al.
2004). The boulders should be placed in random patterns to replicate natural streamflow
conditions, but should not modify stream hydraulics or create unwanted bank scour or debris
collection. For 3 foot diameter rock the cost is between $35 and $300 per boulder to have it
delivered to the site. Installation of the boulders will require a hydraulic excavator with an
operator ($100-$150 per hour) and a site engineer ($65 per hour). With an average installation
rate of four boulders per hour, it is estimated that the total cost for each boulder would be
$50-$60. Based on the spacing recommendations of Saldi-Carolmile et al., our 385 foot site at
Little Stony Creek could fit 10-19 boulder clusters of 3-7 boulders (2004). To implement this
solution would cost between $1,500 and $7,980.
Figure 3. Left: a stream plan view displaying several boulder clusters. The dark grey represents
scour areas and the light grey represents deposition areas. Right: A constructed boulder cluster
during low flow in the Washougal River, Clark County, Washington (Saldi-Caromile et al. 2004).

Flagstone Cover Rocks

Flagstone cover rocks (slab rock structures) are natural, wide, plate-like rocks placed in a
stream to provide improved hellbender habitat (Figures 4, below). Piecuch tested the
effectiveness of flagstone cover rocks in the Allegheny River Watershed in Southwestern New
York (2016). Piecuch used rocks with minimum dimensions of 51cm x 51cm and a thickness of
10-15cm. Piecuch created small depressions in the stream bed by moving gravel and substrates
aside before placing the flagstone rocks. As seen in figure 4, the cover rocks can be wedged into
the substrate and surrounded with sand, gravel, and cobble to mimic the seal of a natural nest
(USDA-NRCS TN-07 2020). Piecuch’s rocks were placed in the thalweg of the channel where
flow is the fastest and sedimentation is the least likely to occur (2016). To ensure stability of the
nesting locations in the channel it is recommended that the rocks should be at least twice the size
of the 10 largest naturally occurring rocks nearby (USDA-NRCS TN-07 2020). It was found that
at sites surveyed before and after cover rock placements, there was a significant increase in the
amount of hellbenders present (Piecuch 2016). Piecuch placed flagstone rocks (>60 cm
diameter) at a density of 0.362 - 0.688 per ft of stream (2016). To replicate this solution in our
385 foot long Little Stony Creek site would be approximately $2,450 - $9,100 excluding
installation fees. This cost estimate was calculated based on a mountain grey flagstone from
ArrowStone Creations in Christiansburg, VA.
 Figure 4. Left: Diagram for installation of rock nest (Technical Note No. TN-07 Dec 2020).
Right: Flagstone cover rocks recently placed in a stream bed (Piecuch 2016).

Design Storm and Rock Sizing

To ensure that the hellbender nests stay in place and are unaffected by stream velocity
and downstream sedimentation, they must be designed to withstand large scale storm events. The
United States Department of Agriculture suggests an aquatic organism passage to be designed for
a 25-year peak flow event for optimal hydraulic performance and structural soundness
(USDA-NRCS 2011). The size of the rocks or concrete box used for the hellbender nest must be
able to stay in place during peak flow. The composition of the channel bed and the channel slope
must also be taken into consideration before implementing a nest.
There are multiple methods for rock sizing that account for turbulence, channel slope,
and uniform or varying flow. USACE habitat boulder design specifically applies to rock clusters
used for aquatic organisms. This technique requires a relatively flat slope with fully immersed
boulders (USDA-NRCS 2007). The formula for sizing boulder clusters using USACE guidance
is listed below using Equation 1:
18 (𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ) 𝑆𝑓
𝐷 = (𝑆𝐺 −1)
(1)

Where:
D = minimum stone size
Depth = channel depth
𝑆𝑓 = channel friction slope

SG = specific gravity of the stone

 An additional technique for rock sizing is Abt and Johnson (1991) which accounts for
channels with varying slopes and unit discharge shown in Equation 2 below (USDA-NRCS
2007):
0.56 0.43
𝐷50 = (𝑞𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛) *𝑆 * 5. 23 (2)

Where:
𝐷50 = stone size in inches; m percent finer by weight
3
𝑞𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 = unit discharge (𝑓𝑡 /𝑠/𝑓𝑡)

S = channel slope (ft/ft) and S between 0.02 and 0.20 ft/ft

Standards
There are several design standards that can be applied to the Stony Creek hellbender
habitat project. This bulleted list contains the standards and specifications that we found most
relevant to our design.

● Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practice Standard:

Stream Habitat Improvement and Management, Code 395:
○ This standard for habitat improvement gives criteria and considerations for
any project that restores habitat in streams. It requires that improvements
be specific to local hydrology, morphology and stream flow conditions, as
well as account for the dynamic nature of the stream and use natural,
native materials when possible. It must not impede on fish passage or
cause degradation of the channel (Natural Resource Conservation Service,
2019).
● Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practice Standard:
Channel Bed Stabilization, Code 584:
○ This conservation practice standard is part of a conservation management
system which is in place to alter channel bed elevation, modify sediment
transportation and deposition, and manage surface and groundwater. The
 goal is to stabilize the channel bed to improve stream conditions and
minimize erosion. The alterations should be able to withstand channel
hydraulics, debris impact, and other anticipated site conditions. It should
not affect endangered species or have a negative impact on historical and
cultural properties of the existing stream and surrounding areas.
● Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practice Standard:
Aquatic Organism Passage, Code 396:
○ The purpose of the Aquatic Organism Passage standard is to create and
improve existing passages for aquatic animals. Plans include assessing the
sites for hydraulic conditions and debris and sediment transportation to
ensure the passage will be compatible with the stream conditions. A
channel plan is then made which includes stream restoration plans. The
passage should be able to withstand a 25-year peak flow event and
frequent thunderstorms. The passage should consider watershed issues that
may occur and assist with aquatic population recovery and management
(Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2011).
● Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Practice Standard:
Streambank and Shoreline Protection, Code 580:
○ This standard for streambank and shoreline protection is used for
treatment in stabilizing and protecting streambanks and channels. Criteria
include preventing damage to surrounding land, reducing erosion due to
downstream sedimentation, managing the flow capacity of water, and
improving the quality and aesthetics of the existing channel. Additional
criteria is protecting vegetation and the habitats of aquatic organisms as
well as preparing for anticipated ice and weather conditions.

Summary and Conclusions

Hellbenders are a crucial part of streams in the eastern US, but have faced a decline in
recent years that has resulted from habitat loss associated with sedimentation from increased
development. They act as an indicator of stream quality because of their need for
well-oxygenated and clean water. This shows that healthy hellbender populations typically
indicate other species are also flourishing, and aquatic ecosystems are functioning properly.
Hellbenders desire water that is clear, fast-flowing, and well-oxygenated. They also prefer
medium and large rocks that they are able to burrow under. This led to several design options for
us to consider. Boot-shaped and hydrodynamic nest boxes are both man-made, concrete
structures that could be placed in the stream by hand. The main concept of the two types is the
same: an enclosed concrete shell with a hollow interior for the hellbender. The hydrodynamic
boxes are able to resist scour and peak flows better because of their streamlined design, but this
comes at an additional cost. Boulder clusters and flagstone cover rocks are more natural design
options that place rocks into the stream instead of concrete, but these are both much more
expensive than concrete and require heavy equipment for installation. Besides appearing more
natural, boulder clusters create diverse water depths, substrates, and velocities which provides
habitat for other species as well as hellbenders. Flagstone rocks can be wedged into the substrate
and are able to resist storm flows well.
The next step is to use the information we have now about the different nest
configurations and use it in combination with characteristics of Little Stony Creek to determine
which design will best fit our criteria. We need to further investigate the strength of a 25-year
storm event that our design must be able to withstand and the effects that the anticipated
streambank stabilization project will have on the stream structure and dynamics. We need to
further analyze the current substrate and hydraulic characteristics of Little Stony Creek in order
to decide which habitat solution will fit best with the existing habitat.
References
Briggler, J. T., & Ackerson, J. R. (2012). Construction and use of artificial shelters to supplement
habitat for hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis). Herpetological Review, 43(3),
412.
Button, S. T., Hallagan, J. J., Bodinof Jachowski, C. M., Case, B. F., Groffen, J., & Hopkins, W.
A. (2020). Weathering the storm: Improving the availability and stability of artificial
shelters for hellbender salamanders. River Research and Applications, 36(9), 1944–1953.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3722
Da Silva Neto, J. G., Sutton, W. B., & Freake, M. J. (2019). Life-stage differences in
microhabitat use by Hellbenders (cryptobranchus alleganiensis). Herpetologica, 75(1),
21. https://doi.org/10.1655/d-17-00072
Fischenich, C., & Seal, R. (2000). Boulder Clusters. ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-11. Ecosystem
Management and Restoration Research Program.
Hillis, R. E., & Bellis, E. D. (1971). Some Aspects of the Ecology of the Hellbender,
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis, in a Pennsylvania Stream. In Source: Journal
of Herpetology (Vol. 5, Issue 3).
HUMPHRIES, W., & PAULEY, T. (2005). Life history of the hellbender, cryptobranchus
alleganiensis, in a West Virginia Stream. The American Midland Naturalist, 154(1),
135–142. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2005)154[0135:lhothc]2.0.co;2

Messerman, A. (2014). The use of nest boxes by the hellbender salamander in western North
Carolina (Doctoral dissertation, MS thesis, Duke University, USA).
Mohammed, M. G., Messerman, A. F., Mayhan, B. D., & Trauth, K. M. (2016). Theory and
practice of the hydrodynamic redesign of artificial hellbender habitat. Herpetological
Review, 47(4), 586-591.
Piecuch, S. A. (2016). Restoring and Enhancing Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis) Habitat through thePlacement of Flagstone Cover Rock. Herpetological
Review, 47(4), 614–617.

Pugh, M. W., Hutchins, M., Madritch, M., Siefferman, L., & Gangloff, M. M. (2016). Land-use
and local physical and chemical habitat parameters predict site occupancy by hellbender
 salamanders. Hydrobiologia, 770(1), 105–116.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2570-0
Saldi-Caromile, K., et al. (2004), Boulder Clusters. In Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines:
Final Draft. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington.
USDA-NRCS. (2011). Conservative practice standard: Aquatic organism passage: Code 396.
Retrieved from
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046836.pdf

USDA-NRCS (2007). Technical Supplement 14C - Stone Sizing Criteria. In Stream Restoration
Design Handbook (National Engineering Handbook, 210VI, Part 654) (pp.TS14C-1 -
TS14C -13). Washington, DC: USDA -NRCS
USDA-NRCS. (2017). Conservative practice standard: Channel bed stabilization: Code 584.
Retrieved from
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/WY/Channel_Bed_Stabilization_(584)_S
tandard_12.2017.pdf

USDA-NRCS. (2013). Conservative practice standard: Streambank and shoreline protection:

Code 380. Retrieved from
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/FL/fl580_CPS_August_2013.pdf

USDA-NRCS. (2019). Conservative practice standard: Stream habitat improvement and

management: Code 395. Retrieved from
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_025692.pdf

USDA-NRCS. (2020). Technical Note No TN-07. Hellbender Habitat Improvement. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tennessee.

Unger, S., Bodinof-Jachowski, C., Diaz, L., & Williams, L. A. (2020). Observations on habitat
preference of juvenile eastern hellbender salamanders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis).
Acta Ethologica, 23(2), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-020-00344-9
VA DWR. (2021). Special Status Faunal Species in Virginia. Virginia Department of Wildlife
Resources. Retrieved from
 https://dwr.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/virginia-threatened-endangered-specie
s.pdf
Wheeler, B. A., E. Prosen, A. Mathis, and R. F. Wilkinson. 2003. Population declines of a
long-lived salamander: a 20+ year study of hell-benders, Crytobranchus alleganiensis.
Biol. Conserv. 109:151–156.
Appendix A - Brainstorming Sessions
10/20/2021
- What software or technologies will be helpful to collect data or run calculations for our
design?
10/29/2021
- Has there been substantial land cover change in the Stony Creek watershed that may have
led to sedimentation or caused disturbance in the water quality?
- Our design is focused on nesting habitat for adult Hellbenders, but other characteristics of
the stream that can be altered to positively benefit larval and adult Hellbender survival
and inhabitance should be considered.
11/08/2021
- What design storm should structures be built or reinforced to withstand?
- Standard/Specification for concrete
- Fish & Wildlife protocols (Standards) for placing artificial habitat, evaluating habitat,
counting Hellbenders
- More information for ‘Review of Technology’
- Inhabitance study of Hydrodynamic boxes
- Control sedimentation, stability/velocity, temperature,
- How to decide density of boxes or structures
11/09/2021
- What are the costs for each nest type?
- Use this to help determine best protocol
- Determine the storm event we want the nests to be able to withstand
- Know what size rocks will withstand our desired flow

Appendix B - Challenges
There were several challenges that our team has encountered up to this point. The main
difficulties stem from the site itself. The site on Little Stony Creek belongs to a private
landowner who owns the left bank of the stream and whose property line ends roughly in the
center of the stream. The right bank of the stream belongs to a different landowner who is
uninvolved in the project. This confines hellbender habitat placement to only the left half of the
stream, which inherently interferes with our goal of creating a habitat that reflects nature.
An additional challenge related to the site is the anticipation of the proposed streambank
stabilization project just upstream. Our team was able to visit the site to both gain a visual sense
of the site and take measurements of flow, bedload size, and riffle cross-sections. However, the
stabilization project will drastically narrow the channel upstream and alter the sediment
transported down to our site, which will cause changes in flow patterns and channel structure at
our site. Our habitation project is also time-dependent on the completion of the stabilization
project, forcing us to wait on any habitat implementation until after the streambank has been
stabilized. The timeframe of that project is still uncertain though and may go beyond our allotted
time for this project of May 2022. In this scenario, discretion on the placement location and
quantity of hellbender habitats would be up to our partners at the NRCS and Virginia Tech
Conservation Management Institute, who are also responsible for the streambank stabilization
project.

Appendix C - Gantt Chart

Appendix D - Team Member Responsibilities
The breakdown of team responsibilities for this technology review are as follows:

1. Cover letter - Tyler

2. Cover Page - Tyler
3. Introduction - Sophie, Tyler
4. Technology Review - Sophie, Tyler, Michael
a. Habitat Preferences - Michael
b. Possible Solutions
i. Boot-shaped nest boxes - Michael
ii. Hydrodynamic nest boxes - Michael
iii. Boulder Cluster Configurations - Michael
iv. Flagstone Cover Rocks - Michael
c. Design storm (rock sizes) - Sophie
d. Standards - Tyler, Sophie
5. Summary and Conclusions - Tyler
6. References - Sophie, Tyler, Michael
7. Appendix
a. Appendix A - Michael, Sophie
b. Appendix B - Tyler
c. Appendix C - Sophie, Tyler, Michael
d. Appendix D - Tyler