20050408 Ver 1_Closeout Report_20130621

1
O..t4R - WATT. UaLITT Y
Ut to Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry)
EEP ID (IMS # 403)
USACE ACTION ID # 200520206
DWQ 401# 05 -0408
CLOSEOUT REPORT
Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site
ProiectSetting & Classifications
County
Randolph
General Location
Liberty
Basin:
Cape Fear
Ph sio ra hic Region:
Piedmont
Ecore ion:
Carolina Slate Belt
USGS Hydro Unit:
03030003 - 020010
NCDWQ Sub - basin:
03 -06 -09
Wetland Classification
Oct 2009
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
No
Monitoring Year -4
Oct 2011
Supplemental Planting
Mar 2012
Project Performers
Oct 2012
Source Agency:
NC DOT
Provider:
May 2013
Designer:
Kimle -Horne
Monitoring Firm
EcoEn ineerin
Channel Remediation
Plant remediation
NC WRC /EEP
Property interest Holder
NCDOT /EEP
05- 00?
Overall Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
Oct.2004
Permitted
Mar 2005
Construction Completed
Dec 2007
As -built survey
Mar 2008
Monitoring Year -1
Oct 2008
Monitoring Year -2
Oct 2009
Monitoring Year -3
Oct 2010
Supplemental Planting
Mar 2011
Monitoring Year -4
Oct 2011
Supplemental Planting
Mar 2012
Monitoring Year -5
Oct 2012
Invasive Plant Control
Apr 2013
Closeout Submission
May 2013

Project Setting and Background
This stream restoration project is one of five EEP Stream mitigation projects in the 03030003020010 targeted local watershed (TLW) The Stressor identified within this TLW is chlorophyll a
and the sources identified for the stressor are agriculture and impervious surfaces The Ut to Sandy Creek project begins at a double barrel culvert under Williams Dairy Road and flows in an east
to west direction across the upstream landowners (Henry) farm and continues through the downstream landowners (Williams) farm, a second unnamed tributary labeled reach III flows north to
south from a pond on the Williams property and joins Ut to Sandy Creek Prior to restoration, Ut to Sandy Creek was incised with Bank Height Ratios ranging between 12 —1 7, reach III had a
bank height ratio of 16 Livestock had access to all project reaches The buffer along the majority of all project reaches consisted of fescue with a few intermittent sparsely wooded areas with a
predominance of privet The project preserved 9 96 acres, restored 2,634 feet of streams through priority I restoration of C4 channels and re- established over 6 acres of bottomland hardwood
forest and an incidental preservation of 84 acres of riparian wetlands for which no credit is being sought
The project channels are stable and no systemic instability has been indicated in monitoring years one through five The channel has adjusted through time, average riffle bankfull widths have
remained stable or decreased, average bankfull cross sectional area has decreased The project is located in the Carolina Slate Belt, minor aggradation and low flow condition have been
observed on several occasions however, three bankfull events have been documented in three separate years between 2009 and 2012
Six vegetation monitoring plots are located on the site Three of the vegetation plots established during baseline monitoring (plots 1,2,3) were relocated to 2011 due to presence in a reduced
height buffer zone, the three abandoned plots exhibited planted densities of 283, 445, and 485 respectively in year 3 (2010) A verbal agreement was made by NCDOT at the time of easement
acquisition to preserve a view shed from the upstream landowner's home to the pasture located on the southern side of Ut to Sandy Creek Lower growth species were planted in this area. There
is no allowance for disturbance of this buffer zone in the conservation easement area and no encroachment has occurred In 2012, five of the six vegetation plots exceeded the performance
standard of 260 planted stems per ace for stream restoration, plot five exhibited a density of 243 planted stems per acre Four of the six vegetation plots exceeded the stream buffer performance
standard of 320 stems per acre, with an average stem count of 438 buffer stems per acre across all six plots Plots five and six exhibited 243, and 202 planted buffer stems per acre respectively,
these densities increase to 485 and 768 respectively when including volunteer stems The site was supplementally planted m 2011 and 2012 in locations indicated on Figure 4 0 and the entire
easement was treated for invasive species in April 2013 and will be treated again in the fall of 2013
Goals and Objectives
The goals of the restoration project were to improve the water quality and biological habitat of the site's streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers through the following
• Restoration (pattern, dimension, and profile) of unstable streams using natural channel design techniques
• Reestablishment of riparian buffers
Page 2 of 23

Table 10 Success Criteria
Restoration Component
Success Criteria
Performance Standard Met
Stream Stability
Judgments of success or failure of restoration activities using monrtonng data will be qualitative
1 Changes in the channel dimension that may occur during the monitoring period will be evaluated to determine
Yes
whether they represent a movement toward a less stable condition
. less than 15% of channel length exhibits active downcuttmg
• downcuttmg,
. minor deposition has occurred resulting in D50 of gravel, coarse
• deposition
sand, and fine sand in riffles but no instability has resulted from
• erosion
aggradation
• Cross sectional data indicates stable cross sections
2 Photographs will be used to quantitatively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of
Yes
riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures
• Photos indicate stable channel
• Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing mid- channel bars or excessive bed scour in riffles
or behind structures
• Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the bank
Riparian Buffer
The success of riparian vegetation planting will be gauged by stem counts of planted species
3 Six permanent quadrants will be used to sample the riparian buffer
Yes
• Site planted density average = 540 stems /acre
• Stem counts exceeding 320 trees per acre after 3 years and 260 trees per acre after 5 years will be considered
• 5 of 6 vegetation plots exceeded 260 stems/ acre
successful
• 4 of 6 vegetation plots exceeded 320 stems /acre
• Vegetation data indicates successful recruitment of volunteer
• Success of live stake plantings will require a 70% survival rate based on sample plots
species
• Successful herbaceous plants will be 75% ground cover
• Photos taken at established photo points should indicate maturation of riparian vegetation community
Page 3 of 23
ii�

Table 2.0 Ut to Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry) # 403 Assets
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation Units
Restoration
Segment/Reach
Pre —
Construction
(acreage /linear
feet
Mitigation
Approach
Watershed
Acreage
As -Built Linear
Footage /Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Mitigation
Mitigation Units
STREAM
" `
+¢.
�
112101"n,
2,505"
0
0
Ut S.C. Reach I
1000
R I
512
1350*
1.0
1343
UT S.C. Reach II
870
R
2637
900
1.0
793
Reach III
290
R (PI)
32
384
1.0
369 *A
* Reduction of 50 linear feet from As -built reflects removal of two ford crossings from the mitigation units
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation Units
Riparian
Non - riparian
Total
Wetland
Riparian Buffer
Nutrient Offset
(SMU)
Wetland Units
Wetland Units
WMU
2,505"
0
0
0
186,599'
0
** Stream & Buffer Credits adjusted to reflect least distance analysis results ( <15 ft stream buffer; <50 ft buffer and pre - existing vegetation buffer
mitigation)
Page 4 of 23

Figure 1.0 Ut Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry) Stream and Buffer Site
EEP ID # 403
Page 5 of 23

Figure 2.0 Ut Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry) Stream and Buffer Site Topographic Map
EEP ID # 403
V.
_N
V 62"
I N V
J N
0
r
Y j.*
YVI: A
C 7)
,A
I f i
Ut Sandy Creek (VOlharns & Henry) Legend
EEP ID # 403
Randolph County
7 5 U SGS Topographic Map Conservation Easement
Greys Chapel
Map Created 5,12112013 E M Fee
I'll 0 wo 1,60
Page 6 of 23

Figures 2.1 & 2.2 Ut to Sandy Creek: Randolph County Soil Survey & LIDAR Map
Ut Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry) Stream and Buffer Site LIDAR Map
EEP ID # 403
f�
-� o w as 4eo
L t Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry) `
EEP ID #403
Randolph Co. Sal Survey, Grays Chapel Quad.- sheet 9120
2001 LIDAR: nterpdated 2 It contour & stretched elevation grid
Map Created: 51212013 F m
Page 7 of 23
legend
Ceelaur 002 eleVedon
QComw aton Easement 1NWe
Ptopxt RtNehee ® Hn 1154
R4Kh
— nuch ie tow 114
U sar4cmek

Figure 3.0 Ut Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry) Stream and Buffer Soils Map
EEP ID # 403
-- 0 120 240
Ut Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry)
EEP ID # 403
Randolph County Soil Survey
Map Created 5/21/2013
480
r�
�`eCOS�JtE'l11
Page 9 of 23
egend
oils Conservation Easement
USYM Project Reaches
ChA Reach
VaC —Reach III
—Ut Sand reek

Ut Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry) Stream and Buffer Site Supplemental Planting Zones Map
EEP ID # 403
Feet
0 120 240 480
Ut Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry)
EEP ID # 403
Supplemental Planting 312011 & 312012
Invasive Species Treatment entire easement
5/2012 & Fall 2013
r�
'COSYStE'ITl
Page 10 of 23
Legend
2011_supplemental_plant Q Conservation Easement
Layer Project Reaches
2011 Reach
® Viewshed Area - Reach III
2012 Supplemental Plant - U Sandy CreeK
Crest Gauge
wgplots
Layer
2008 Veg pot
2011 Veg dot

Figure 5.0 Ut to Sandy Creek (Williams & Henry) EEP ID 403 Cross Sections
UT to Sandy Creek Cross Section I - Riffle
583
582
581 — — — Bankfull
580 - -- - --- - ---- ---- Year- 0,8/22/07
Year -1, 9/16/08
579 -- Year -2, 9/11/09
—6— Year -3, 6/30110
578 —a— Year -4, 04/21111
rt Year -5 9/20/12
577 pp gg�� 6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4 Width from R60er Left 70Ri7F�t f�0 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
UT to Sandy Creek Cross Section 6 - Pool
571
570
569 — — — gankfull
568 —e— Year -0, 822/07 _ — — — — — — —
567 cc Year -1, 9116/08
— Year -2, 9/11109
566 --a— Year -3, 6/30/10
565 ---R— Year -4, 04/21111
564 t Year -5 9120/12 p4 pg 3q
-1 4 9 14 19 Width from River Left to
44 49 54 59
UT to Sandy Creek Cross Section 3 - Riffle
569
568
567 — — — Bankfull
�Yeer -0,8/22/07 -- — — — — --- - - - - --
566 Year -1, 9/16/08
5565 — Year -21 9/11/09
� Year -3, 6/30/10
564 —r— Year-4, 04/21/11
563 t Year -5 9/20/12 a
-2 3 8 13 18 23Width�om Rtver Leh eo Right3(ft) 48 53 58 63
UT to Sandy Creek Cross Section 5 - Riffle
570
569 — — — Bankfull
56 —Year -0,8/22/07 — — - -- — — — — — — — — — —
Year- 1.9/18/08
567.9 Year -2, 9/11/09
—cam Year -3, 6/30/10
5664 —M —Year- 4,04/21/11
56P t- Year -5 9/20/12 2a
-1 4 9 14 19 Width2tom River Left to fight (ftj9 44 49 54
UT to Sandy Creek Cross Section 4 - Pool
569
568
567
— — — Bankfull
566 -- --- - - - - -- --- - -- - - - - -- Year- 0,8/22/07
Year -1, 9/16/08
565. �--
Year-2,9/11/09
564 Year -3, 6/30/10
—M—
Year-4,04/21/11
563 Years, 9/20/12
562
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 '#5idthjqom f4ver EQft t(Wghpk) 65 70 75 80 85 90
Page 11 of 23

Figure 6.0. Ut to Sandy Creek 2012 Yr 5 Longitudinal Profile Data
580 —
579 / —
578
577
576 Reach —►
Z75 I — — — YR-0 TW Profile 2/29/08
YR -1 TW 10/1/08
g4 o YR -1 Structures
YR -2 TW 9/9/09
IJ3
n YR -2 Structures
i"
YR -3 TW 6/30/10
02
YR-4 TW 4/21/11
X YR-4 Structures
1
YR -5 TW 9/20/12
YR -5 Structures
570
10000
10100 10200 STATION(m" 10400
Note: Due to slight differences in thalweg length, longitudinal profile was adjusted horizontally. Elevation data was not
Z IA
571
570
569
568
567
z 566
0
E: 565
e
W 564
W 563
562
10500
11000 11100 11200 11300 11400 11500
STATION (feet)
Note: Due to slight differences in thalweg length, longitudinal profile was adjusted horizontally. Elevation data was not
5//
576
575
574
573
572
z
0571
d 570
W 569
a
W 568
567
10500 10600 10700 STATION (Q00 10900 11000
Note: Due to slight differences in thalweg length, longitudinal profile was adjusted horizontally. Elevation data was not
567
565
563
561
Z
O 559
F
e
W 557
W
555
11500 11600 11700 11800 11900
Note: Due to slight differences in thalweg length, longitudinaTproTileI`ON Sfus horizontally. Elevation data was not
Page 12 of 23
12000

Figure 6.0 Ut to Sandy Creek & Reach III Longitudinal Profile (cont.)
563
562
561
560
&559
Z
0
W57
556
555
12000 12100 12200 12300 12400
STATION (feet)
Note: Due to slight differences in thalweg length, longitudinal profile was adjusted horizontally. Elevation data was not
12500
578
576
574
572
C 70
H
>568
a
%i
566
564
562
--- YR-OTW
YR -1 TW 10/1/08
O YR -I Structures
YR -2 TW 9/9/09
YR -2 Structures
YR -3 TW 6/30/10
o YR -3 Structures
YR-4 TW 4/21/11
x YR-4 Structures
YR -5 TW 9/20/12
YR -5 Structures
I `
�t v
Reach III
20000 20050 20100 20150 20200 20250 20300 20350 20400
STATION (feet)
Note: Due to slight differences in thalweg length, longitudinal profile was adjusted horizontally on average 10 feet. Structures
Page 13 of 23

Figure 7.0 Ut to Sandy Creek Bankfull Events
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to andv Creek Stream Restoration Pro ' ect /EEP Pro'ect Number: 403
Date of Data
Method
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Photo # if available
c
0
.y
On -Site Crest Gage located
H
ti 58
u
d
06/29/10
Between 09/09/09 and
at Station 115 +32.
Not Available
06/29/10
Observed elevation on gage
Period of approved data
aoM ""t'" of CM U.S. Gooloyice sarvev
at elevation 566.63
On -Site Crest Gage located
04/21/11
Between 06/29/10 and
at Station 115+32.
Not Available
04/21/11
Observed elevation on gage
at elevation 567.51
On -Site Crest Gage located
09/20/12
Between 04 /21/11 and
at Station 115 +32.
Not Available
09/20/12
Observed elevation on gage
at elevation 567.43
Note: A crest gage was installed during the 2009 Monitoring Year 2 field investigations so that bankfull events can
be documented during subsequent monitoring years. Monitoring Year 3 is the first monitoring year in which
bankfull events were documented. The crest gage is located at Station 115 +32 and is depicted in Figurel .0.
USGS 82894775 RYAN CREEK BELOW US 220 AT GREEKSBORB, NC
200
N
U
L
158
m
a+
0
c
0
.y
H
ti 58
u
d
d
B
2088 2088 2809 2089 2818 2018 2811 2011 2012 2012 2813
— Precipitation — Period of provisional data
Period of approved data
aoM ""t'" of CM U.S. Gooloyice sarvev
Page 14 of 23

Figure 8 0 Ut to Sandy Creek Morphology Tables
Parameter
Cross Section 1 Riffle
Cross Section 2 Pool
Cross Section 3 Riffle
Cross Section 4 Pool
Dimension
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
BF Width (11)
230
246
32 1
260
24
256
298
640
636
305
157
148
14 7
142
127
30 1
507
266
219
161
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
100
100
100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
00
100
100
100
1000
1000
N/A
N/A
N/A
00
00
BF Cross Sectional
Area 112
191
195
218
178
16
456
256
653
646
314
202
189
185
190
158
503
572
441
314
227
BF Mean Depth (ft)
08
08
07
07
1
18
09
10
10
10
13
13
13
13
12
17
1 1
1 7
14
14
BF Max Depth (ft)
16
14
1 15
14
1
41
1 22
46
1 46
36
24
23
24
25
23
40
1 42
41
35
31
Width/Depth Ratio
>12
>12
>12
380
36
>12
>12
>12
625
295
122
116
116
106
101
>12
>12
>12
15 3
114
Entrenchment Ratio
>2 2
>2 2
>2 2
39
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
00
00
>2 2
>2 2
>2 2
70
79
N/A
N/A
N/A
00
00
Bank Height Ratio
10
1 0
10
14
1
10
10
10
46
36
10
10
10
25
23
10
10
10
3 5
3 1
Substrate
d50 mm
16
23
24
13 3
F27
135
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
01
0 1
0 1
07
06
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
d84 mm
44
54
54
30
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
6
6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Parameter
Cross
Section 5
Rife
Cross
Section 6
Pool
Dimension
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
172
136
99
96
95
136
126
92
96
100
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
100
1000
1000
N/A
N/A
N/A
00
00
BF Cross Sectional
Area (ft2)
84
70
46
42
42
126
110
81
80
83
BF Mean Depth (ft)
05
05
05
04
04
09
09
09
08
08
BF Max Depth (ft)
1 1
10
09
09
08
20
17
15
17
17
Width/Depth Ratio
>12
>12
>12
220
214
146
144
144
117
120
Entrenchment Ratio
>2 2
>2 2
>2 2
104
106
N/A
N/A
N/A
00
00
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
10
10
09
08
10
10
10
17
17
Substrate
d50 mm
01
0 1
0 1
02
02
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
d84 mm
80
N/A
0
0
35
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A I
N/A
Page 15 of 23

FV
Figure 9.0. Ut to Sandy Creek Vegetation Data
Current Plot Data (MYS 2012
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
E403 -01 -VP4
E403 -01 -VP5
E403 -01 -VP6
E403- allen -VP7
E403allen -VP8
E403allen —VP9
Pnol-S
Pall
T
PnoLS
Pall
T
Pnol-S
Pall
T
PnoLS
Pall
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
Pall
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
1
1
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula ni ra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
1 11
11
11
4
4
4
Carpinus caroliniana
American hombeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ca rya
hickory
Tree
12
12
12
Celtis laevi ata
sugarberry
Tree
Comus
dogwood
T or S
1
1
1
Comus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
10
10
10
Comus Honda
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
Comus sericea ss . sericea
redosier dogwood
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsyivanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
Hamamelis vir iniana
American witchhazel
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
Ju lans ni ra
black walnut
Tree
1
1
1
Juni eras
juniper
1
1
1
Lindera benzoin
northern s icebush
Shrub
Li uidambar
sweet um
Tree
Mimosa
sensitive plant
Exotic
N ssa syivatica
black um
Tree
1
1
1
Pihus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus ni ra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
4
1 4
4
Stem count
Species count
Stems per ACRE
18
18
18
6
6
6
9
9
9
15
15
15
19
19
19
16
16
16
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
9
9
9
5
5
5
728.4
728.4
2428
242.8
242.8
364.2
364.2
607
607
768.9
768.9
647.5
647.5
Page 16 of 23

Figure 9.1. Ut to Sandy Creek Vegetation Data Summary
Annual Means
MY5 2012
M 2011
MY3 2010
MY2 2009
MYl 2008
PnoLS
I P -all
T
PnoLS
I P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
I P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
I T
Stem
count 83
83
83
8L19
Met
106
65
65
83
59
59
104
48
48
48
Specie
Count 20
20
20
1
243
21
11
11
12
ll
II
14
ll
11
ll
M
5.8
559.8
5,67
Yes
714.9
769
438.4
559.8
Yes
397.9
701.4
VP9
323.7
323.7
Page 17 of 23
Riparian Buffer
Wetland /Stream Vegetation Totals
Stems
er acre)
Stream/
Success
Riparian
Success
Plot #
Wetland
Volunteers}
Total'
Criteria
Buffer
Criteria
Stems'
Met
Stems
Met
VP4
W"-7Mllll
0
728
Yes
VP5
243
0
243
No
243
No
VP6
364
0
364
Yes
202
No
VP7
567
0
607
Yes
5,67
Yes
vP8
769
0
769
Yes
728
Yes
VP9
567
0
647
Yes
X67
Yes
Protect
540
0
560
Yes
438
Yes
Avg
1
Page 17 of 23

EEP Recommendation and Conclusion
EEP recommends that this site be closed out with 2,634 liner feet of stream restoration to yield
2,413 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 186,599 square feet of buffer restoration to yield
186,599 Buffer Mitigation Units (BMUs) The requested credit quantities reflect a net reduction
of 221 SMUs (8 %) of stream credit due to buffer widths less than fifty feet The least distance
analysis resulted in 453 if of stream with a buffer width of less than 50 feet which was offset by
an upward adjustment of 151 If of stream buffer resulting from stream buffer widths between 50
and 1,000 The buffer mitigation units requested reflect removal of all buffer zones less than 50
feet in width, all areas with pre - existing vegetation, and two ford crossings
Contingencies
This site will be treated for invasive species again in the fall of 2013
Page 18 of 23

Post - Construction Photos: 2011 & 2012
Page 19 of 23

APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary
403- UT to Sandy Creek (Williams Tract)
The UT to Sandy Creek project is located in Catalog Unit (CU) 03030003 and Hydrologic Unit
(HUC) 03030003020010 (Sandy Creek watershed) and is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) in the 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP) (2009 Cape Fear
RBRP). The project is in Randolph County approximately 5.5 miles west of Liberty, NC.
According to the 2009 RBRP, this is a largely rural HUC (39 %). The main stream, Sandy Creek,
flows through Randolph County to Sandy Creek Reservoir, a water supply for Ramseur and
Franklinville. As of 2012, the HUC had no streams on DWQ's list of impaired waters; however,
the reservoir shows indications of high nutrient levels, likely related to the large number of
animal operations in the HUC. The HUC is a Water Supply Watershed and portion of Sandy
Creek is recognized by the NC NHP as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. EEP has been active
in the HUC with five projects that incorporate both stream and wetland restoration and
preservation. Piedmont Land Conservancy has also been active in protecting streamside buffers
in the HUC. Continued implementation of practices to reduce nutrient inputs to Sandy Creek
Reservoir is recommended for this HUC.
Implementation of the UT to Sandy Creek project manages onsite non -point sources by fencing
out livestock and including controlled crossings, stabilizes stream banks, and improves habitat
quality and connectivity through stream restoration and establishment of a riparian buffer. In
addition, this project will also contribute to reduced nutrient levels in Sandy Creek Reservoir, the
protection of a NC NHP Significant Natural Heritage Area and maintenance of a Water Supply
Watershed. UT to Sandy Creek project benefits will be enhanced by the fact that this project is in
close proximity to three other restoration projects on Sandy Creek and together they will provide
increased uplift to the larger watershed.
ALAMANCE
I' 1'
f
Ur to Sandy (reek 1
IM hens Tract)
o
o
upper n.4-a',
UM, -d Middle
UvAarde
LM
�
♦
� • sner
Rocky River LWP
�
Legend
s...
e EEPPrycts- 2113CloSMW9•es
!_
_
e EEP Projects (Tier l)
• 31♦Proptic
♦ CNMTF Sees
. EEP Local Wrl.r edPens
'.
©EEPTarg +aloca WaMaoads
e�a•auk.
N
w +E
EEP 2013 Project Closeout o
UT to Sandy Creek (Williams Tract)
1 z a
oMnes ',
Cowp Liotndst.s
s
Cape Fear 03030003
R., 23Al,020 1 _
Page 20 of 23

APPENDIX B — Land Ownership and Protection
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation
project includes following parcel.
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the NC Department
of Transportation will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that
restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
http: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA /PROPERTY /403 UTtoSandyCreek (Williwns'Fract)pdf
Page 21 of 23
Site Protection
Deed Book &
Acreage
Grantor
County
Instrument
Page Number
protected
Charles A. Williams and wife,
Conservation
Jeanette B. Williams
Randolph
Easement
1973/1072
6.11
Winfield V.M. Henry and wife,
Conservation
Elizabeth W. Henry
Randolph
Easement
2003/1636
3.85
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the NC Department
of Transportation will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that
restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
http: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA /PROPERTY /403 UTtoSandyCreek (Williwns'Fract)pdf
Page 21 of 23

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
naLlt1 V tU
I'.S..AWMI "t RPSOFENCINEFRS dFRI :..
))t�All \t.IrJ \- l L�iRltl
n. h,e. tlt :PS!.PSr •. x. 4WiiFr°t.:
1:1 \t R }I. PI R \II I IRI:J:10 \.\I. \MI \A 1'IOANINf 1 \ I IIIFIS'.\ IIU\
• _ m .rer RreSnn
n.Nr,1W lxr
.I. SVS.vr. fYS1 \IW h".nk xt xM.r
4)eµL �wrk ['are6xa !•Yw jel[rhK ho I.I.IiIS -IISt
♦.:Iera�N \ry
':wTm-,"IxW n..x e.m_...:ne., r. r tM.Ne h beMrR eR tN wlxrw w f W 1 Yxn) 4tl ISR
ltela spn\Irrry S.S Nex.xxr K IJrery. NudNRY Cexel.. Vw1Y ('xnYu
,taco._ RaeO Cxwk Pirm Pain. CxReFm Nl'4 0.N.NM:
•!r x.,mnvn a1.uSxe ..J mxwwl I W MrY ewMrim rM
gxrivn M NJe/ rM rxr.ur. wwru mxwl e..wfw.e mYk IM NuYe.s Iw. W tM YLrP.N..bee
u Rrq kn r \xehl nek exxw�xYrR4Rx
..kWm.Y N,w ma
art -.1. 1 4i k ' .,�,•
nl M MN
t.uY....eun n.lweexk.+Rry.,rel r;na+e 14•m -.neM 11,
1e4eJsbave +�Jr�w..e hom.w. �R xre *v)a�b
4 WYnY6 m..W, n xwim.h eJf.wt. rM b
m YSru �SUr 1•
wm b mvm�.G ry.eer�.
. �.yktu ..tm nah�w+.h, - rnYrm mkar
v M •.rfhna mout�xurree w �,ende xx.wluav ww
m)wm^nsm.. `ui WxrW rem.l exr dW n,rwrwx.h..JwlSVrv, ul u:npwu�tem.exe ).v
m�We,IwLrave.e xelm J.k,mw snuee wl•wwem+.•
n amp - -IU W, mul.ir.hWipuxx �..�.nV �1
t. wJaea �� +5
MfkRae :aHb Mar n,ha�we`'a�IR�,�us.r HIV pmwue H✓. nY^neL, -; m.mrne mYMmt+rm frsnl
dxeww. ;.anr 1gh•e�1e1nMMla. ea)i �1 Hx. Yn,vr n�xe mMlN� :m Rr.0 ...
I r,.. R.t.:..n rY!a�r� _ -. rv. Itiv Y13e'tIRS tn�fxarwi Fynrrxw ln:e ddlslW)
YNbnN NIRN
m.w. Saam Murtam lSalem MUn.Wa®w'ma�l reQ
TueMW,..t+rY •2 30Ui Pie nM
Mpa4 Nlm
yy.rf. VrMf t>r4 M
x..mm.n.m • .. ,r.,.h +rm de<, �.,......Il.,.,..r..��re„n,�m,. r.,,n.«..'.�.,. rih,v,. r.�.w. nm
rM Rr aY.ywY weY ,w. n rywirmYn. — uumrwaeeYrnt «ewwMws ) .w.
.... �'.w.` wn.l <<f.��,J�,�.° , -• r "e.> R ,w..meW.,ml., ..�x., t.el. o..uuwlo
\icktnic
'Iwx e v
k,xJ �hie h Ihs c- mailer x.tu mfifiwi+n for JPI xppnwm: Jux the CmJ) C'rak Pmjof.. \leu, t:ee 1.,
..A ..eeL I J ewl b xMr In aneml IM nvatinR e: IM Ma<'zn Ciw nrm�m• + 3tJ 1 I-
.wk
R.verd rn lM ml �nnt! Ilsve n Rrnr GN �
4hn
_0.' M Mxwgc ------
saklx.l:IFMd: 4: IFad:/U —1)
OWR: Wed 06 Lpr 2WS OY:b1: /} UIDII
Fxw xfl'w -k.
T.:VIRn MlnadR +.It.nn n,mvJ.., i�. n.xl ..I
elriyi,rl Mnxege - -_
I.1 A -1
ORY :C,- Apr Lf0} 1— _.IR d.JIO
ieJeRlurek
CC:wrtta klimek .'khan .'Wyxu.blmwn
•efreeRtwe I Jllfl Jx I�IrrYM. .x �nml�n�
L'1 `J200}
Page 22 of 23

Mitigation Project Name UT to sandy Creek (Williams Tract)
EEP IMS ID 403
River Basin CAPE FEAR
Cataloging Unit 03030003
ADDlied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5.1 5'1 1 1 3:1 21 5'1 1'1 3'1 2'1 5 1 1'1 3'1 9 1 fi -1 1 1 3l1 n , 1 1 1 1 1
Beginning Balance (feet and acres
2,505.00
C
O N
zm
C
O U
z
v
C
O L
zw`
G
O d
za
b VI
d
�w
W U
u
d
N
q L
�W
E
N
,p
ua
186,599.00
Is c
d y
m
✓�
�-m
o
z
O
z
o
n
L
a
o
z
NCOOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): of Applicable
EEP Debits feet and acres
DWO Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
2006 -0331
2004 -00340
NCDOT TIP R- 06091A !
IB / R -2606 - US 311
Bypass (Future 1- 73174)
2,413.00
Riparian Buffer ILF Credit Purchase
186,599.00
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
92.00
0.00
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 6/7/2013