20090688 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20090612

Charles Williams
Stream, Wetland and Buffer Site
Randolph County, North Carolina
State Construction Office Project No. 070712501
EEP Project No. 80

Y

4 4 a T :'-?
A ? S

Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
1?yystem
1{,Tl l??lll?'.?lIl['lYt
Final Stream Restoration Plan
May 1, 2009
Prepared by:
Ecological
10
neering J
J
n i
128 Ra?ei?hjtreet
Holl?j' Prinks, NC 27540
(9 19) 557-0929
On Behalf Of:
Sungate Design Group, P.A.
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone]

G. Lane Sauls, Jr., Principal
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... iv
Goals and Objectives ...........................................................................................................................iv
Existing Amounts of Streams, Wetlands and Buffers .........................................................................iv
Proposed Amounts of Streams, Wetlands and Buffers .........................................................................v
Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts .............................................................................................................v
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location ........................................................1
1.1 Directions to Project Site ...............................................................................................................1
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes and NCDWQ River Basin Designations ......................................1
1.3 Project Vicinity Map .....................................................................................................................1
1.4 Project Components and Structure ................................................................................................1
1.5 EEP Letter of Intent .......................................................................................................................2
2.0 Watershed Characterization ........................................................................... 3
2.1 Watershed Plan Description ............................................................................... ...........................3
2.2 Drainage Area, Project Area and Easement Acreage ......................................... ...........................3
2.3 Surface Water Classifications and Water Quality .............................................. ...........................4
2.4 Physiography, Geology and Soils ....................................................................... ...........................4
2.5 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ................................................... ...........................5
2.6 Endangered and Threatened Species .................................................................. ...........................5
2.6.1 Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) .................................... ...........................6
2.6.2 Schweinitz's Sunflower (Hehanthus schweinitzii) .......................... ...........................7
2.6.3 Other Species of Importance ........................................................... ........................... 8
2.7 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. ...........................9
2.8 Potential Constraints ........................................................................................... .........................10
2.8.1 Environmental Screening ................................................................ .........................10
2.8.2 Property Ownership and Site Access ............................................... .........................10
2.8.3 Utilities and Easements ................................................................... .........................11
2.8.4 FEMA / Hydrological Trespass ....................................................... .........................11
3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions) ..................................................12
3 .1 Existing Conditions Survey ..................................................................................... ....................12
3 .2 Channel Classification ............................................................................................. ....................12
3 .3 Valley Classification ................................................................................................ ....................12
3 .4 Discharge ................................................................................................................. ....................12
3 .5 Channel Morphology ............................................................................................... ....................13
3 .6 Channel Evolution ................................................................................................... ....................13
3 .7 Channel Stability Assessment ................................................................................. ....................13
3 .8 Bankfull Verification ............................................................................................... ....................14
3 .9 Vegetation Community Type Descriptions and Disturbance History .................... .....................14
4.0 Reference Stream ............................................................................................16
4.1 Watershed Characterization .........................................................................................................16
4.2 Channel Classification .................................................................................................................16
4.3 Discharge .....................................................................................................................................16
4.4 Channel Morphology ...................................................................................................................16
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC i
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Table of Contents Continued
Page
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment .....................................................................................................16
4.6 Bankfull Verification ...................................................................................................................17
4.7 Vegetation Community Type Descriptions and Disturbance History .........................................17
5.0 Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions) ...............................................18
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ................................................................................................................18
5.2 Hydrological Characterization .....................................................................................................18
5.3 Soil Characterization ...................................................................................................................19
5.4 Vegetative Community Type Descriptions and Disturbance History ..........................................19
6.0 Reference Wetland ......................................................................................... 20
6.1 Hydrological Characterization .....................................................................................................20
6.2 Soil Characterization ...................................................................................................................20
6.3 Vegetative Community Type Descriptions and Disturbance History ..........................................20
7.0 Project Site Restoration Plan ........................................................................ 22
7.1 Notes on Stream Design ............................................................................................................. .22
7.1.1 Justification for the Level of Intervention ............................................................... .22
7.2 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................................. .23
7.2.1 Designed Channel Classification and Wetland Type .............................................. .23
7.2.2 Target Wetland and Buffer Communities ................................................................ .24
7.3 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... .24
7.4 HEC-RAS Analysis .................................................................................................................... .24
7.5 Stormwater Best Management Practices .................................................................................... .25
7.6 Hydrological Modifications ........................................................................................................ .25
7.7 Soil Restoration .......................................................................................................................... .25
7.8 Natural Plant Community Restoration ........................................................................................ .25
7.8.1 Planting Plan ............................................................................................................ .25
7.8.2 Invasive Species Management ................................................................................. .27
7.8.2.1 Vegetative Species ...................................................................................... .27
7.8.2.2 Non-Vegetative Species ............................................................................. .27
8.0 Performance Criteria ..................................................................................... 28
8.1 Streams ........................................................................................................................................28
8.2 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................28
8.3 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................29
8.4 Schedule and Reporting ...............................................................................................................29
9.0 References ........................................................................................................30
Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Structure
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Table 5. Morphological Design Table
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC ii
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Table of Contents Continued
Table 6. Cross Section Comparison
Table 7. BEHI and Sediment Export Rates for Project Site Streams
Table 8. Soil Preparation and Amendment Summary per Zone
Table 9. Seeding Summary for Temporary and Permanent Vegetation per Planting Zone
Table 10. Planting Summary per Planting Zone
Figures
Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Site Watershed Map
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph
Figure 4. NCDWQ Fish Community and Benthic Station
Figure 5. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 6. Project Site Hydrological Features and Wetland Delineation Map
Figure 7. Project Site Vegetative Communities Map
Figure 8a. Stream Reference Site Vicinity Map
Figure 8b. Wetland Reference Site Vicinity Map
Figure 9a. Stream Reference Site Watershed Map
Figure 9b. Wetland Reference Site Watershed Map
Figure 10a. Stream Reference Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 10b. Wetland Reference Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure l la. Stream Reference Site Vegetative Communities Map
Figure l lb. Wetland Reference Site Vegetative Communities Map
Designed Sheets
Sheets 1 and 2. Existing Conditions
Sheets 3 and 4. Conceptual Plan
Sheet 5. Planting Plan
Sheet 6. Typical Sections
Appendices
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Appendix 3. Project Site BEHI Worksheet
Appendix 4. Reference Site Photographs
Appendix 5. Stream Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Appendix 6. Reference Site BEHI Worksheet
Appendix 7. Project Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 8. Project Site Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix 9. Wetland Reference Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 10. HEGRAS Analysis
Appendix 11. EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Appendix 12. Categorical Exclusion and Supporting Documentation
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC iii
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ecological Engineering, LLP (Ecological Engineering) has entered into an open services design contract with
the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) via
Sungate Design Group, P.A. (Sungate) to provide stream, wetland and buffer enhancement designs and
construction management at the Charles Williams Site. The Charles Williams Site, or Project Site, is situated
within the upper Cape Fear River Basin, approximately four miles west southwest of the Town Limits of
Liberty in Randolph County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Project work will specifically include stream
enhancement (Level II), wetland enhancement and riparian buffer enhancement.
The Project Site is located in the Upper Cape Fear Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030003020010, the
Sandy Creek Watershed. This HUC is identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in EEP's Draft 2009
Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan (available at the EEP web site under the link
http://www.nceep.net/pages/lwplanning.htm.).
Goals and Objectives
No restoration goals were identified in the Cape Fear River Basinwide Management Plan (2005) with regard
to the Sandy Creek watershed. There were no sources or stressors listed for the watershed area associated
with the Project Site.
Current landuse is the main reason for degradation throughout the Project Site. Livestock are offered no
barriers across the property which has resulted in degradation to the UT, its associated wetland areas and the
riparian areas along both channels. By removing livestock from the Conservation Easement area,
incorporating stabilization along the existing reach and supplementing vegetation, the project will uplift
existing natural and biological processes. It will also improve the overall function and habitat associated with
the stream channel and riparian areas.
The goals are to reduce nutrient and sediment water quality stressors, provide for uplift in water quality
functions, improve instream and wetland aquatic habitat, including riparian terrestrial habitat and provide for
greater overall instream and wetland habitat complexity and quality.
The objectives are to exclude livestock in their entirety from the Conservation Easement area, install stream
structures and plantings designed to maintain vertical stability, lateral stability and habitat, revegetate and
supplement those areas lacking suitable vegetation along the easement area and rip the existing compacted
soils throughout the areas void of woody vegetation.
Existing Amounts of Streams, Wetlands, and Buffers
The Conservation Easement at the Charles Williams Site is separated into three parcels. The first two parcels
are situated along an Unnamed Tributary to Sandy Creek (UT) and cover 1,748 linear feet of degraded
stream channel and 1.96 acres of degraded jurisdictional wetlands. Additional buffer area exists within the
two parcels; however, credit for buffer enhancement has been restricted only to the area along Sandy Creek
per an existing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EEP and the resource agencies. The third parcel
includes Sandy Creek and its northern streambank. Buffer enhancement is proposed throughout this 4.7-acre
area.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC iv
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Proposed Amounts of Streams, Wetlands, and Buffers
Ecological Engineering proposes to enhance 1,748 linear feet of stream channel and its associated
jurisdictional wetlands along the UT. No stream restoration or enhancement is proposed along Sandy Creek.
The proposed amount of wetland enhancement covers 1.96 acres. Riparian buffer enhancement is proposed
along the northern bank of Sandy Creek, covering approximately 4.7 acres. This information, along with the
proposed mitigation calculations, is provided in Table 1.
Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
No impacts will occur to jurisdictional wetlands as part of project implementation. Two jurisdictional
wetlands were delineation along either side of the UT. These wetlands are severely degraded as a result of
continuous compaction and grazing from livestock and will be enhanced as part of the project. The
enhancement work will include livestock removal via exclusion fencing and supplemental planting. Benefits
will include water quality improvement, surface runoff interception, reduced bank and shoreline erosion and
increased overall habitat for wildlife.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC V
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The Charles Williams Site is situated in northeastern Randolph County. It can be accessed by using the
following directions from US Highway 64.
• Turn north on US 421 in Siler City, towards the Town of Liberty.
• Proceed approximately 9.5 miles and turn south (left) onto NC 49.
• Proceed approximately 0.7 miles along NC 49 and turn north (right) onto SR 2459 (Sandy Creek
Church Road).
• Follow Sandy Creek Church Road approximately 4.5 miles until it intersects with SR 2442
(Ramseur-Julian Road) and turn north (right),
• Follow Ramseur-Julian Road approximately 0.3 miles, crossing over Sandy Creek. The Charles
Williams Site is on the west (left) side of the roadway, immediately north of Sandy Creek.
Based on available mapping from the US Geological Survey (USGS), the Project Site is located in the
vicinity of the coordinates 35.8255569 ON and 79.6504008 °W.
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The Project Site is part of the upper Cape Fear River Basin, referred to as the Deep River Basin, situated
within the following codes and designations:
• US Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030003;
• USGS 14-digit HUC 03030003020010; and
• NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) subbasin 03-06-09.
1.3 Project Vicinity Map
The Charles Williams Site is situated approximately four miles west southwest of the Town Limits of Liberty
and six miles north of Ramseur (Figure 1). It is bordered to the north and west by undeveloped land, the east
by Ramseur-Julian Road and the south by Sandy Creek. Northeastern Randolph Middle School is on the
property opposite of Sandy Creek, to the south.
1.4 Project Components and Structure
The following information pertains to project components and structure with regard to the stream
enhancement of the UT and its associated wetlands, as well as the enhancement of the riparian buffer area
along the north side of Sandy Creek. This information is summarized in Table 1.
Enhancement (Level II) of the UT will utilize natural channel design methodologies consistent with Priority
Level IV stream restoration protocols. These protocols specifically include the stabilization of the existing
channel in place. A Conservation Easement recorded on February 22, 2006 affords protection to the Project
Site for perpetuity. Stream enhancement will ultimately result in the reduction of bank erosion and associated
sediment contributions, the enhancement and improvement of aquatic and terrestrial habitats and the
opportunity for education to the surrounding community.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 1
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Wetland enhancement work is proposed throughout the existing wetland areas along both sides of the UT.
These wetlands are severely degraded as a result of continuous compaction and grazing from livestock. The
enhancement work will include livestock removal via exclusion fencing and supplemental plantings. Benefits
include water quality improvement by trapping nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous, toxic substances
and disease-causing microorganisms. Wetlands also slow and intercept surface runoff, protect shorelines and
banks from erosion and protect upland areas from flooding, as well as provide valuable habitat for wildlife.
Riparian buffers, extending a minimum of 50 feet from the top of bank outward, will be established along
both sides of the UT and the north side of Sandy Creek. Riparian buffer enhancement credit will be issued
only along the portion of Sandy Creek as per an existing MOA between EEP and the resource agencies. This
area will be enhanced through livestock removal via exclusion fencing and supplemental plantings. Buffers
are one of the most functionally beneficial and biologically diverse systems that also provide services of
great economic and social value. The benefits associated with a forested buffer include water quality
enhancement, stormwater and floodwater management, streambank and shoreline stabilization, water
temperature modification, wildlife habitat protection and absorption of airborne pollutants. This
enhancement, along with stream and wetland enhancement, will aid in reducing overall sediment inputs at
the site, as well as downstream.
Tables 2, 3 and 4 summarize the project timetable and history, project contacts and project attributes,
respectively.
1.5 EEP Letter of Intent
EEP issued a Letter of Intent to Mr. Charles Williams in August 2008. EEP will provide agricultural Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as documented to include livestock exclusion fencing along both sides of the
UT and the north side of Sandy Creek and alternative watering devices outside of the easement area.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 2
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1 Watershed Plan Description
EEP develops River Basin Restoration Priorities to guide its restoration activities within each of the state's
54 cataloging units. RBRPs delineate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and opportunity for
wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds are called Targeted Local Watersheds
(TLWs) and receive priority for EEP planning and restoration project funds. The 2009 Draft Cape Fear River
RBRP identified HUC 03030003020010, which includes the Project Site, as a Targeted Local Watershed.
The following information is taken directly from the document. "This is a largely rural HU. The main stream,
Sandy Creek, flows through Randolph County to Sandy Creek Reservoir, a drinking water supply for
Ramseur and Franklinville. As of 2006, the HU 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 HU. The HU is a Water Supply Watershed and a long portion of Sandy Creek is recognized by the
State's NHP as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. EEP has been active in the HU with 5 projects that
include components of preserving wetlands (3 acres) and streams (5,100 linear feet) and restoring wetlands
(15 acres) and streams (15,000 linear feet). Piedmont Land Conservancy has also been active in protecting
streamside buffers in the HU. Continued implementation of practices to reduce nutrient inputs to Sandy
Creek Reservoir is recommended for this HU." The Charles Williams Project Site will increase bank
stability, reduce erosion and eliminate a direct nutrient source to both the UT and Sandy Creek, by
establishing riparian buffer and eliminating livestock access.
2.2 Drainage Area, Project Area and Easement Acreage
The watershed associated with the UT is rural, consisting of family-owned farms, wooded areas and scattered
residential homes. Its drainage area covers approximately 4.9 square miles. Impervious cover acreages range
between five and six percent.
Sandy Creek's watershed is much larger, covering nearly 34 square miles. This watershed includes a mix of
urban areas associated with the Town of Liberty and rural, farming areas. Approximately seven to eight
percent of this watershed is covered by impervious surfaces. Figure 2 depicts the watersheds associated with
both streams.
The Charles Williams Site is an active cattle farm. It is dominated by pastureland and cattle appear to be the
main source of revenue for the property. The cattle currently have no barriers restricting their movement
across the UT and surrounding floodplain. Progress Energy maintains a high powered transmission line
which crosses the property in a northeast-southwest orientation. It crosses the UT near its confluence with
Sandy Creek and is outside of the Conservation Easement associated with the Project Site.
A copy of the Conservation Easement plat is provided in the ERTR (2008). It affords protection of the
Project Site for perpetuity and covers the northern bank of Sandy Creek and both sides of the UT. Totaling
approximately 18 acres, the plat depicts three parcels, two ingress/egress easements and one access easement.
An aerial photograph of the Project Site is presented in Figure 3. Site photographs are provided in Appendix
1.
Ground disturbing activities will be restricted to the area along the UT. These activities include, but are not
limited to, streambank re-sloping and re-grading, minimal floodplain benching, floodplain ripping and
disking and the placement of a permanent stream crossing. No ground disturbance activities are proposed
within the existing jurisdictional wetland areas or the adjacent floodplain areas exhibiting woody vegetation.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 3
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
2.3 Surface Water Classifications and Water Quality
According to NCDWQ (2008b), both Sandy Creek and its UT classify as WS-III waters. WS-III waters are
used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing services where a more protective
WS-1 or WS-11 classification is not feasible. WS-111 waters are generally in low to moderately developed
watersheds. Point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to rules stated in 15A
NCAC 02B .0104 and .0211. Local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of
pollution are required. These waters are suitable for all Class C uses, including aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
No High Quality Waters (HQWs), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) or Special Management Strategy
Areas exist within five miles of the study area.
NCDWQ (2005a) denotes 13 individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
wastewater discharge permits in the sub-basin. None of the dischargers are situated in the Sandy Creek
watershed at or above the Charles Williams Site; however, there are several dischargers listed more than four
miles downstream of the Project Site along Sandy Creek. In addition, the report also identifies six registered
dairy operations, one registered cattle operation, one registered poultry operation and seven swine operations
in the sub-basin (NCDWQ, 2005a).
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for assessing a stream's biological
integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The NCIBI incorporates information
about species richness and composition, indicator species, trophic function, abundance and condition and
reproductive function. Because these data represent water quality conditions with a high degree of
confidence, use support ratings using these data are considered monitored. The entire Sandy Creek run, from
its upstream-most point to SR 2495 (Mulberry Academy Road), approximately four miles downstream from
the Project Site, is identified as Supporting.
NCDWQ also monitors a Fish Community and Benthic Station situated near the Mulberry Academy Road
crossing over Sandy Creek. According to NCDWQ (2005a), the station provided aquatic life assessment
results of "Excellent" in 1999 and 2001 and "Good" in 2002 and 2003. Figure 4 denotes the location of
Mulberry Academy Road with respect to the Project Site.
2.4 Physiography, Geology and Soils
The Charles Williams Site is within the Piedmont physiographic province. It is situated along the transitional
area separating the Southern Outer Piedmont and Carolina Slate Belt eco-regions.
According to Wyatt (2006), the soils of Randolph County formed from felsic, intermediate, and mafic
crystalline rocks or from fine-grained metamorphic rocks. The crystalline rocks are primarily in the northern
part of the county while the fine-grained metamorphic rocks, collectively referred to as Carolina slate, are in
the southern part of the county. The boundary between these primary geologic formations extends from
Archdale to Liberty with a few isolated areas scattered throughout the county. The felsic rocks are mostly
granite, gneiss, and schist. Soils that formed in material weathered from these rocks generally are acid.
Vance, Cecil, and Appling soils are the major soils of this type. The mafic and intermediate rocks are mostly
gabbro, diorite, granodiorite, quartz diorite, and quartz monzonite. Soils that formed in material weathered
from these rocks are acid to mildly alkaline. Mecklenburg, Wynott, Enon and Helena soils are the major soils
of this type.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 4
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
The soils underlying the study area are dominated by the Chewacla Series. The soils associated with this
series are very deep and somewhat poorly drained. They are restricted primarily to the floodplain areas along
Piedmont river and stream valleys. These soils have formed from recent alluvium. Slopes range from zero to
two percent and permeability is moderate. Outside of the floodplain areas, the Appling and Vance Series
occur within, or immediately adjacent to the study area. The soils associated with these two series are very
deep and well drained. Permeability ranges from slow to moderate and depth to bedrock extends more than
60 inches. Slopes range from two to 15 percent. Figure 5 depicts the soil mapping units underlying the
Project Site and its surrounding area.
2.5 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Based on discussions with the landowner, land use throughout the project and surrounding areas has
remained unchanged for the past several decades. It is anticipated that over the next couple of decades,
growth from Liberty and Ramseur will expand and likely initiate the conversion of portions of the existing
undeveloped areas to residential or commercial holdings. As a result, the overall amount of impervious
surface is expected to increase within both of these watersheds.
Ecological Engineering reviewed the Randolph County Growth Management Plan (2002) to discern
information regarding development trends within and surrounding the project area. According to this
document, the project is situated within a "Rural Growth Management Area" which exhibits policies enabled
to protect the entire watershed of both streams from uncontrolled development. The populations throughout
Randolph County are projected to increase from 128,640 (Year 2000) to 184,623 (Year 2020). Growth trends
within and surrounding the project area include manufactured housing and site-built development. These
trends are expected to continue throughout the next several decades (RCGMP, 2002).
No local watershed plans or other available information exists for the watersheds associated with the Project
Site.
2.6 Endangered and Threatened Species
Certain populations of fauna and flora have been, or are, in decline due to either natural forces or their
inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any federal action likely to adversely affect a species listed as
federally protected be subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Prohibited actions which may affect any species protected under the ESA are
outlined in Section 9 of the Act. Other species may receive additional protection under separate laws such as
the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1999, the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972 or the Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Species which are listed, or are proposed for listing, as endangered or threatened are recorded in Section 4 of
the ESA. As defined by the Act, an Endangered species is any plant or animal which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. A Threatened
species is any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Resource investigations were conducted by a qualified biologist on May 6, June 24 and June 25, 2008. Field
surveys were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and to document natural communities,
wildlife and the presence of protected species and/or their habitats. Published information regarding the study
area and region and protected species was derived from a number of resources, which are summarized in the
ERTR, dated October 8, 2008.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 5
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
According to the USFWS (2008), there are two Endangered "E" species listed as potentially occurring in
Randolph County; the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Hehanthus
schweinitzii). No other federal Endangered or Threatened species are known to currently inhabit any portions
of this county.
2.6.1 Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas)
According to the USFWS (2008), the Cape Fear shiner was
first described as a new species in 1971. It is a small
(approximately two inches long), yellowish minnow with a
black band along the sides of its body. The shiner's fins are
yellow and somewhat pointed. It has a black upper lip, and the
lower lip bears a thin black bar along its margin. The Cape
Fear shiner is known to consume both plant and animal
material, although its digestive tract is modified primarily for a
plant diet, due to the presence of an elongated, convoluted
intestine.
The Cape Fear shiner is generally associated with gravel, cobble and boulder substrates, and has been
observed in slow pools, riffles and slow runs. These areas occasionally support water willow (Justicia
americana), which may be used as cover or protection from predators (e.g. flathead catfish (Pylodictis
olivaris), bass (Micropterus spp.) and crappie (Pomoxis spp.)). The Cape Fear shiner can be found swimming
in schools of other minnow species but is never the most abundant species. During the spawning season,
which occurs between May and July, the Cape Fear shiner adults move to slower flowing pools to lay eggs
on the rocky substrate. Juveniles are often found in slack water, among large rock outcrops of the midstream,
and in flooded side channels and pools. Cape Fear shiners are sexually mature after their first year, and are
known to live up to six years in captivity (USFWS, 2008).
The Cape Fear shiner is endemic to the upper Cape Fear River Basin _
in the Central Piedmont of North Carolina. The species is known
from tributaries and mainstreams of the Deep, Haw and Rocky
Rivers in Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore and Randolph Counties. "-"
Only five populations of the shiner are thought to exist. A population
is designated when groups are separated by natural barriers or Distribution ofthe Cape Fearshiner
manmade obstructions such as dams. Two of the five remaining
populations are very small and unstable, and therefore at risk of
extirpation. The precise number of shiners in each population is not known, but effective population sizes in
the other three populations are estimated to be between 1,500 and 3,000 individuals. These effective
population sizes however, only consider the number of available breeding individuals (USFWS, 2008).
The Cape Fear shiner was listed as Endangered with Critical Habitat on September 25, 1987 under the
provisions of the ESA of 1973, as amended. In the last few decades, the shiner has undergone a reduction in
range, population sizes and populations (USFWS, 2008).
Critical habitat is defined under the Endangered Species Act as the specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by a species which have physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations or protection, or specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species but for which those areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. According to USFWS (2008), three designated areas of Critical Habitat exist for the Cape Fear
Shiner:
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 6
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
2
NC 902 Bridge
a point 0.1 river miles upstream of the SR 2873 Bridge downstream to the Deep River then
downstream approximately 4.1 river miles along the Deep River in Randolph and Moore
Counties to a point 2.5 river miles below the SR 1456 Bridge in Moore County.
Chatham County. Approximately 4.1 miles of the Rocky River from the
downstream to the bridge on SR 1010;
Chatham and Lee Counties. Approximately
0.5 river miles of Bear Creek, from the SR
2156 Bridge downstream to the Rocky River,
then downstream along the Rocky River
approximately 4.2 river miles to the Deep
River, then downstream along the Deep River
approximately 2.6 river miles to a point 0.3
river miles below the Moncure, North
Carolina, USGS Gaging Station; and
Randolph and Moore Counties.

Approximately 1.5 miles of Fork Creek, from
Based on available documentation, there are no Federal Designated Critical Habitats at or within a ten-mile
radius of the Project Site.
Scoping letters requesting review were sent via US Mail to the USFWS and NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) on April 10, 2008. Ecological Engineering received a letter from the NCWRC on
April 22, 2008 stating the no significant adverse impacts were anticipated to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources as a result of the proposed action. As of October 29, 2008, no correspondence has been received
from the USFWS. Therefore, it is determined that the USFWS does not have any comments regarding
protected species or their habitats with regard to the proposed project. A copy of the letter from the NCWRC
is presented in the ERTR, dated October 8, 2008.
Both streams within the project area exhibit sandy substrates. Habitat preferred by the Cape Fear shiner does
not exist. In addition, the UT is severely degraded and laden with sediment. On-line map reviews at the
NCNHP website revealed no sightings or occurrences of this species within two miles of the project area.
Therefore, based on existing site conditions and available information, project implementation will not effect
the Cape Fear shiner.
2.6.2 Schweinitz's sunflower (Hehanthus schweinitzii)
According to USFWS (2008), Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb
that grows from three to six feet tall from a cluster of tuberous roots. The
stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above mid-stem. The stem
is usually pubescent and is often purple. Schweinitz's sunflower begins
flowering in late August or early September and continues flowering until
the first frost. The yellow disk and ray flowers are formed on small heads;
the involucre (disc) is less than one inch across. The petals are
approximately one inch long. The nutlets are 1.3 to 1.4 inches long and
are glabrous with rounded tips. The lanceolate leaves are opposite on the
lower stem and alternate near the flowers. They are generally larger on
the lower stem, and gradually reduced upwards and are thick and stiff in
texture. The pubescence of the leaves is distinctive and is one of the best
characters to distinguish Schweinitz's sunflower from its relatives. The
upper surface of the leaves is scabrous (rough), with the broad-based
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 7
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Hetl areas denote 6esignatea Crib, al Ilabilat Ibi tke Cape Fear skirei
spinose hairs directed toward the tip of the leaf. The lower surface is more or less densely pubescent, with
soft white hairs obscuring the leaf surface. Lower stem leaves average four to eight inches long and one half
to one inch wide, while the upper leaves are half this size. The leaves are five to ten times as long as wide
and either sessile or have short petioles. Leaf margins are entire or with a few obscure serrations and are
generally also somewhat revolute. Reproduction is accomplished both sexually (by seed) and asexually (by
tuberous rhizome).
It is believed that this species formerly occupied prairie like habitats or Post Oak - Blackjack Oak savannas
that were maintained by fire. Current habitats include roadsides, power line clearings, old pastures, woodland
openings and other sunny or semi-sunny situations. Schweinitz's sunflower is known from a variety of soil
types but is generally found growing on shallow, poor, clayey and/or rocky soils, especially those derived
from mafic rocks. In the few sites where Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in relatively natural vegetation, the
natural community is considered a Xeric Hardpan Forest, as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina and South
Carolina. The species is currently known from Anson, Cabarrus, Davidson, Gaston, Mecklenburg,
Montgomery, Randolph, Rowan, Stanly, Stokes, Surry and Union Counties in North Carolina and York and
Lancaster Counties in South Carolina.
Schweinitz's sunflower was listed as Endangered on May 7, 1991 under the provisions of the ESA of 1973,
as amended.
The soils underlying the Charles Williams Site include Appling sandy loam, Chewacla loam and Vance
sandy loam. These soils are derived from either a residuum weathered from felsic high-grade metamorphic or
igneous rock or from recent alluvium. Based on this information, suitable habitat for this species does not
exist. No sunflowers were observed during the site reconnaissance. On-line map reviews at the NCNHP
website revealed no sightings or occurrences of this species within two miles of the Project Site. Therefore,
based on available information and documentation, project implementation will have no effect on
Schweinitz's sunflower.
2.6.3 Other Species of Importance
Species identified as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of rare plant and
animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
According to the USFWS (2008), there are nine Federal Species of Concern (FSC) and one Candidate (C)
species listed as potentially occurring in Randolph County. The NCNHP identifies a total of 19 species, 10 of
which are not listed as FSC, but as either state-endangered, threatened or of special concern (NCNHP, 2008).
These species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. The chart presented at the end of this section depicts both
federal and state species of importance for Randolph County, their scientific names, classifications and the
presence of available habitat at the Project Site.
On-line map reviews at the NCNHP website were conducted on July 17, 2008. There are no recorded
sightings or occurrences of any species denoted by the USFWS or NCNHP documented within a two mile
radius of the Project Site.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 8
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATE HABITAT
STATUS STATUS PRESENT
Vertebrates:
American eel Anquilla rostrata FSC - Yes
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC SC No
Carolina redhorse Moxostoma sp. 2 FSC - No
Four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum - SC No
Star-nosed mole - Coastal Plain Pop. Condylura cristata pop. 1 - SC No
Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus - SC No
Invertebrates:
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC E No
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicose FSC E No
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC E Yes
Carolina fatmucket Lampsilis radiates conspicua - T No
Creeper Strophitus undulates - T Yes
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis - E Yes
Greensboro burrowing crayfish Cambarus catagius - SC No
Roanoke slabshell Elliptio roanokensis - T No
Savannah lilliput Toxolasma pullus FSC E Yes
Triangle floater Alasmidonta undulata - T Yes
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC E Yes
Vascular Plants:
Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum C T No
Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil Lotus unifoliolatus var. helleri FSC - No
C - Candidate: A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing (formerly "C I" candidate species).
FSC - Federal Species of Concern: A species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient information to
support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the future, and
many of these species were formerly recognized as "C2" candidate species.
E - Endangered: Any native or once-native species of plant or animal whose continued existence as a
viable component of the State's flora or fauna is determined by the NCWRC to be in
jeopardy or any species of wild animal determined to be an `endangered species' pursuant
to the ESA, as amended. (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues; 1987).
T- Threatened: Any native or once-native species of plant or animal which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the ESA, as
amended. (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues, 1987)
SC - Special Concern: Any species of plant or animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is
determined by the NCWRC to require monitoring but which may be taken under
regulations adopted under the provisions of this Article. (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the
General Statues; 1987).
Sources: USFWS, 2008 & NCN11P, 2008
2.7 Cultural Resources
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides that properties and districts listed in,
or eligible, for listing in the National Register of Historic Places be considered in the planning of federal
undertakings such as highway construction and community development projects. "Federal undertakings"
also include activities sponsored by state or local governments or private entities if they are licensed,
permitted, approved or funded (wholly or in part) by the federal government. Federal undertakings do not
include loans made by banks insured by the FDIC or federal farm subsidies.
There is no absolute protection from federal actions that may affect a historic property. If a federal
undertaking is in conflict with the preservation of a historic property, the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) will negotiate with the responsible federal agency, sometimes with the involvement of the federal
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in an effort to eliminate or minimize the effect on the property.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 9
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
This mitigation procedure applies to properties that are determined eligible for the National Register in the
day-to-day environmental review process as well as those actually listed in the National Register.
North Carolina law (G.S. 121-12(a)) provides for consideration of National Register properties in
undertakings funded or licensed by the state. Where a state undertaking is in conflict with the preservation of
a National Register property, the NC Historical Commission is given the opportunity to review the case,
"giving due consideration to the competing public interests involved," and make recommendations to the
state agency responsible for the undertaking. The commission's recommendations to the state agency are
only advisory. Properties potentially eligible for but not actually listed in the National Register are not
protected under G. S. 121-12 (a).
No structures, buildings, ruins or other man-made items exist within the area denoted as the Project Site.
Structures, including those associated with private residences and their associated farm buildings exist
outside of the project area; however, none of these will be impacted by the restoration of the stream channel
and enhancement of the surrounding wetland and buffer areas.
No items relating to archaeological resources were observed during the site visit.
A letter dated July 21, 2008 from the NC Department of Cultural Resources, SHPO, confirms there are no
historic resources that would be affected by the project. A copy of this letter is provided in the ERTR (2008).
2.8 Potential Constraints
2.8.1 Environmental Screening
Ecological Engineering completed the checklist entitled "Environmental Screening and Document
Guidelines for Ecosystem Enhancement Program Projects (draft date 8.18.05)" in accordance with EEP
protocols. This information is intended to assist EEP in satisfying the Federal Highway Administration's
(FHWA) obligation to ensure compliance with various federal environmental laws and regulations. This
obligation is necessary in order to preserve FHWA's ability to reimburse the NC Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) for costs incurred for offsetting NCDOT impacts through EEP projects. The
Categorical Exclusion Form is provided in the ERTR (2008). Figure 6 depicts the existing hydrological
features at the Project Site.
In addition, Ecological Engineering obtained data from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) with
regards to environmental risk at or near the Project Site. The Project Site is not listed on any of the databases
searched by EDR. Detailed information pertaining to EDR's database is presented in the ERTR (2008).
2.8.2 Property Ownership and Site Access
Mr. Charles Williams owns the property underlying the Project Site in its entirety. There are five tracts
included as part of this project. The Conservation Easement denotes the easement boundaries with regard to
the underlying parcels. Access to the Site is provided via two locations: (1) an ingress/egress easement from
Ramseur-Julian Road to the UT and (2) access to Sandy Creek directly from Ramseur-Julian Road,
immediately north of the existing bridge. Parcel and Pin information regarding the ownership status is
provided in the chart below. Parcel location information is provided in the ERTR (2008).
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 10
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Name: Charles Alfred Williams
Address: 3669 Ramseur - Julian Road, Liberty, NC 27298
Description Deed Book / Page Pin ID.
Parcel containing UT Sandy Creek and area west 1331/813 8705667824
Parcel containing UT Sandy Creek and area east 1203/1719 8705764748
Parcel containing downstream portion of Sandy Creek and area north 1141/851 8705863750
Parcel containing upstream portion of Sandy Creek and area north 1013 / 572 8705865383
Parcel containing upstream portion of Sandy Creek and area north 991 / 13 8705868791
2.8.3. Utilities and Easements
Based on field observations and associated mapping, a 70-foot wide Progress Energy Easement separates the
Project Site into two areas. This easement provides a clear, periodically maintained right-of-way for high
powered transmission lines. No restoration or enhancement work is proposed within this area.
There are no other utilities or easements are known to occur within the Project Site.
2.8.4 FEMA/ Hydrological Trespass
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map Number 371870500J dated January 2,
2008, Sandy Creek and its UT are located within a FEMA limited detail flood study with regulated non-
encroachments. The current HEC-RAS model used by NC Floodplain Mapping (NCFPM) was utilized to
model the proposed enhancement and its potential impacts to the 100-year water surface elevations.
The enhancement project will not create any rise associated with the 100-year water surface elevations
through the UT. No structures, dwellings or other human-related aspects will be impacted as a result of the
proposed action. More information pertaining to the HEC-RAS model is provided in Section 7.4
No hydrological trespass will occur at the Project Site.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 11
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions)
Both Sandy Creek and its UT are considered perennial, jurisdictional stream channels. The NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form for the UT is provided in Appendix 2. This form offers a quick, qualitative assessment
based on a numerical system. Scores exceeding 30 represent a perennial or primary stream, while those
between 19 and 30 represent an intermittent or secondary channel. Any scores less than 19 discern the
channel as either ephemeral or stormwater-based. The UT scored a 48.5.
3.1 Existing Conditions Survey
Existing conditions surveys were completed during June, July and August 2008. These surveys included
natural resources assessments, protected species assessments, jurisdictional wetland delineations and detailed
morphological surveys. The information in the preceding sections relates to the data obtained during the
survey period.
3.2 Channel Classification
According to the survey data, the UT classifies as an unstable C5 stream type. Channel classifications follow
methodology developed by David Rosgen, Ph.D., PH. which uses discrete classes for a suite of morphologic
parameters such as entrenchment, width/depth ratio, sinuosity and channel materials to set parameters or
prescribe intervals for categorizing stream types. According to Rosgen (1996), this stream type is a slightly
entrenched, meandering, sand-dominated, riffle-pool channel with a well developed floodplain. Slopes are
generally less than two percent and the stream channel may exhibit a higher width/depth ratio than coarser-
based C stream types due to the depositional characteristic of the streambed and the active lateral migration
tendencies. The riffle/pool sequence averages five to seven bankfull widths in length and bed forms of
ripples, dunes and anti-dunes are prevalent (Rosgen, 1996). In the case of the UT, its morphology is limited
as a result of impacts and subsequent destabilization. The majority of the reach classifies as run or glide with
little to no changes with regard to overall facet slopes.
3.3 Valley Classification
The Project Site is situated in a Valley Type VIII. This valley type is described by Rosgen (1996) as most
readily identified by the presence of multiple river terraces positioned laterally along broad river valleys with
gentle, down-valley elevation relief. Alluvial terraces and floodplains are the predominant depositional
landforms which produce a high sediment supply. Soils are developed predominantly over alluvium
originating from combined riverine and lacustrine depositional processes (Rosgen, 1996).
3.4 Discharge
According to the NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve data provided by the Water Quality Group at NC State
University (Harman et al. 1999), the bankfull discharge for the UT should range between 100 and 700 cubic
feet per second. Based on our calculations using Manning's Equation and HEC-RAS software, the discharge
for the UT is 150 cfs, which is within the 95% confidence interval of the predicted discharges. These
calculated discharges correspond with a 1.2-year return interval. The chart below depicts this information
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 12
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Bankfull Dischar ge
Stream Manning's Mountain Piedmont USGS Rural Design
Regional Regional Regression Discharge
Equation Curve Curve
UT Sandy Creek XS # 1 150 cfs n/a 337
f 1.2 yr -143 cfs 150
f

UT Sandy Creek XS #2
128 cfs
n/a c
s
2 yr - 412 cfs c
s
Based on existing and proposed future landuse, the overall amount of impervious surface within the
watershed is not anticipated to significantly change in the next decade. The bankfull discharge is expected to
remain consistent for the near future.
3.5 Channel Morphology
Intensive channel surveys were conducted to ascertain morphological data. Existing and proposed plan view
drawings are depicted on Design Sheets 1 and 2 (existing) and 3 and 4 (proposed). Morphological data is
provided in Table 5 and a comparison of the cross sections is shown in Table 6. Longitudinal profiles are
included on both the existing and design sheets.
3.6 Channel Evolution
Stream channel adjustments are normally the consequences of accelerated sediment supply, accelerated bank
erosion, degradation, streamflow changes, sediment budget changes and various other causes that occur
either within the stream channel or its watershed. These changes result in stability shifts and adjustments
leading to stream channel morphological changes, particularly stream classifications. According to WARSSS
(2008), the adverse adjustments can create accelerated sediment yields, loss of land, lowering of the water
table, decreased land productivity, loss of aquatic habitat and diminished recreational and visual values.
Channel data was subsequently compared with
evolutionary data provided by Simon and
Hupp (1996) and Rosgen (1999). Ecological
Engineering used the channel evolution
scenarios to determine the most appropriate
design stream type. Based on existing and
potential future conditions, the UT will likely
remain as a C-stream type, pending no
changes in the overall watershed. If changes
occur, the scenario C to D to C (not incised)
may be applicable; however, this would be the
result of a braided channel via flow
obstruction. Any obstruction would allow for
channel widening and the possible creation of
additional, or side-channels.
3.7 Channel Stability Assessment
Ecological Engineering utilized two methods,
Pfankuch and Bank Erosion Hazard Index
(BEHI), to determine and document channel
stability along the UT.
CHANNEL LVOLUTIONMODKIL SEQV.ENC1r QP STIZEAMTYPIROCCUREZCE
(SIX STAGES) DI,IE TO MO RPH p1,0rI CAL CHAIN Gf
5 AWR and Happ, 1466 (ROWEN. 1946)
{.4 Vn Rta y.:ES
Sr;e sT}FSr C.
S[. ii r91i9 :Q
l.M1CdAih ].$
Rsav3FfisK ? i:[f+r .67s
. 1 rr,?r ir?4 $
v^ .xr.Fiop? .?.?
Sup tt
G.rvurd G4 s?rr?n T}tir C:
xL?sY:PS ' F?7 Rr 6k1i
r•a:??.g. ioi
SLW IV F4 F:
.??
rs!N 1?4
v r.: .: :F?wus!y i
y .ioP+? .00a
Y Y ;? F
yg Ca s:.r. w a
Q.rrsF.sn [.. oa[ •:4w1 m?rr r M,. r.:iC a
t, P1 l? i
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 13
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Pfankuch (1975) developed a system to rate channel stability which has been widely used by stream
restoration professionals. This system is used to quantitatively describe the potential for sediment material
detachment and changes in sediment supply due to changes in streamflow and/ or changes in watershed
condition. It has also been used to generally assess fisheries habitat conditions, and to indirectly assess
streambank damage resulting from cattle grazing. Since this method was developed prior to the classification
system, the good, fair and poor rating values have been adjusted by stream type (Rosgen, 1996). The UT
classified as "Fair - Moderately Unstable" according to this assessment.
Streambank erosion rates were calculated using the BEHI method combined with the near bank shear stress
method as taught by Dave Rosgen, PhD., PH, Wildland Hydrology, Inc. Bank erosion occurs as a result of a
number of processes including dry ravel, mass wasting, surface erosion, liquification, freeze-thaw, fluvial
entrainment and ice scour. The ability of streambanks to resist erosion is primarily determined by the
following factors:
• the ratio of streambank height to bankfull stage;
• the ratio of riparian vegetation rooting depth to streambank height;
• the degree of rooting density;
• the composition of streambank materials;
• streambank angle (i.e., slope);
• bank material stratigraphy and presence of soil lenses; and
• bank surface protection afforded by debris and vegetation.
Vertical streambanks throughout the reach were measured to determine an approximate erosion rate per year.
Based on field observations, erosion is obvious along portions of the entire reach. This erosion is most
evident in areas lacking vegetation along the streambanks. These areas account for approximately 50 percent
of the stream length associated with the UT. The BEHI ratings averaged "High" along the UT while near
bank shear stresses averaged in the "Moderate" category. This "High" rating was the result based on the
sandy classification, which added an additional ten points to the worksheet calculation. The parameters Root
depth versus bank height, weighted root density, bank angle and surface protection all scored in the
"Moderate" category while bank height versus bank-full height scored as "Very Low," which was due to the
little or no incision currently existing along the stream channel. Erosion rates along the UT may reach as high
as 0.7 ft/year, or approximately 9.7 tons of sediment per year. Table 7 provides BEHI and sediment export
rates for the UT. A copy of the BEHI worksheet is presented in Appendix 3.
3.8 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull verifications were obtained using HEC-RAS modeling software. Field-observed bankfull data
points, including the uppermost scour lines and in some cases, the backs of point bars, were surveyed and
compared to data output from the model. Bankfull elevations were consistent with the 1.2-year storm, which
is the common recurrence interval in North Carolina.
3.9 Vegetation Community Type Descriptions and Disturbance History
Two terrestrial plant communities, Agricultural/ Pastureland and Piedmont Alluvial Forest, were observed at
the Charles Williams Site. These communities exist along the UT and Sandy Creek, respectively, and are
both currently influenced by cattle grazing. Vegetative species observed are denoted by both their common
and scientific names. Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only. These
communities are shown in Figure 7.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 14
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
The Agricultural/ Pastureland community is comprised mainly of grasses and weeds. This community is
situated along both sides of the UT and includes the two jurisdictional wetland areas. Herbaceous vegetation
dominates this community, with the exception of a thin, scattered buffer of woody species along the UT and
sporadic occurrences of individual species throughout the floodplain. Species commonly observed were
fescue (Festuca sp.), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), barnyard grass (Echinochloa sp.),
dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana),
hogweed (Erigeron canadensis), Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica), dallis grass (Paspalum sp.), and
Bermuda grass (Cynodon sp.). Within the two wetland areas, soft rush (Juncus effusus), smartweed
(Polygonum sp.), duckweed (Lemna sp.) and bacopa (Bacopa sp.) were noted intermixed with the
aforementioned species. Woody species such as river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), willow oak (Quercus phellos), red maple (Acer rubrum),
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), black willow (Salix nigra), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multijlora), black berry (Rubus sp.) and
greenbrier (Smilax sp.) were observed. The effects of cattle grazing and compaction keep this community in
an overall low state of natural succession.
The Piedmont Alluvial Forest community exists along Sandy Creek. It appears to provide a secondary source
of browse for cattle within the area. As a result, the understory is relatively open and dominant species are
mainly those situated among the canopy or along the herbaceous layer. According to Schafale and Weakley
(1990), this community is situated along river and stream floodplains in which separate fluvial landforms and
associated vegetation zones are too small to distinguish. This community is underlain by alluvial soils, most
typically Chewacla (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The canopy includes a mixture of bottomland and
mesophytic trees including green ash, river birch, sycamore, sugarberry, red maple, ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), willow oak, American elm (Ulmus americana), Chinese privet, black walnut (Juglans nigra),
sweetgum and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Herbaceous species observed were smartweed, ragweed
(Ambrosia sp.), dogfennel, Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium frstulosum), Japanese grass (Microstegium
virmineum), clover, violet (Viola sp.), poison ivy, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), greenbrier and thistle
(Carduus sp.).
According to Schafale and Weakley (1990), flood-carried sediment provides the main nutrient input to this
community, as well as serving as a disturbance factor. Beavers are known to occasionally create
impoundments within the communities, which range throughout the Piedmont and lower Blue Ridge valleys.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest communities generally grade into various mesic, dry-mesic or dry upland forests.
Their variations are related to flooding regimes (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
The disturbance history of the Project Site has been consistent for several decades. The Project Site and
surrounding areas are kept in a low state of natural succession for livestock holding and grazing. Sandy
Creek exhibits a narrow riparian corridor along its northern bank. This corridor continues along the UT,
although it is scattered and concentrated primarily to edges of the streambanks.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 15
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
4.0 Reference Stream
With the overall amount of disturbance associated with agriculture, including row crops, timber and livestock
management as well as the absence of water during the early summer of 2008, stable channels were very
difficult to locate throughout Randolph and its surrounding counties. As a result, Ecological Engineering
relied on reference data provided by EEP. This reference stream, labeled as Terrible Creek, was surveyed by
NC State University in 2007.
4.1 Watershed Characterization
Terrible Creek is located in southwestern Wake County near Fuquay Varina (Figure 8a). It was selected
based on its overall size, vegetative composition, particle distribution and overall appearance. Its watershed
covers approximately 2.3 square miles. Based on aerial photography, the Terrible Creek watershed is
comprised of approximately 50 percent forest, 25 percent pasture and row crops and five percent surface
waters (including ponds). The remaining 20 percent is manipulated lands consisting of roads, homes, barns,
sheds and other types of disturbance. The watershed associated with Terrible Creek is presented in Figure 9a.
In addition, a soils map of the area is provided in Figure 10a.
Site photographs of Terrible Creek are provided in Appendix 4. The stream was assessed using the NCDWQ
Classification Worksheet. It scored a 51.0. As previously mentioned, channels must receive a score of 30 or
higher in order to be classified as a perennial stream. A copy of the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form is
provided in Appendix 5.
4.2 Channel Classification
Terrible Creek classifies as a C5 stream type with an entrenchment ratio averaging 4.0, width/depth ratio
averaging approximately 14.0, sinuosity of 1.4 and a water surface slope of nearly 0.5 percent.
4.3 Discharge
Bankfull discharge along the stream was derived using the Continuity Equation (Qbkf = Vbkf x Abkf, where Q is
the discharge, V is the velocity and A is the cross sectional area at the bankfull elevation). According to the
calculations, the discharge along Terrible Creek averaged 122.7 cfs. This value is within the 95% confidence
interval associated with the existing regression lines provided by the NC Stream Restoration Institute.
4.4 Channel Morphology
Intensive channel surveys were conducted along Terrible Creek by NC State University personnel.
Morphological data is provided in Table 5.
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment
Both the Pfankuch and BEHI assessments were utilized to document channel stability on the reference
stream. The methodology associated with these two assessments is provided in Section 3.7. Terrible Creek
classified as "good - stable" according to the Pfankuch assessment. Results of the BEHI assessment yielded
"Moderate" classification (see Appendix 6). Based on the near bank shear stress calculations, erosion rates
along Terrible Creek may reach as high as 0.3 ft/year, or approximately 6.4 tons of sediment per year.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 16
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
4.6 Bankfull Verification
Due to the stable nature of the existing reference stream, bankfull verifications were not required as part of
normal surveying procedures. Bankfull features were commonly observed along the stream channel. These
features were surveyed and compared with the existing regional curve data. There were no discrepancies.
4.7 Vegetation Community Type Descriptions and Disturbance History
The Terrible Creek reference reach is surrounded by mature forest (Figure lla). Based on its landscape
position, vegetation is characteristic of the Piedmont Bottomland Forest, as described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990). Dominant canopy and understory species observed were tulip poplar, red maple, American
elm (Ulmus americana), green ash, ironwood and privet. Vines included Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The herbaceous stratum was sparse in overall density
and most individuals were either absent or unrecognizable due to the February (winter) assessment period.
The disturbance history has included several cycles of timbering; however, the overall degree of disturbance
is unknown at the current time.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 17
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
5.0 Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions)
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Resource investigations were conducted by a qualified biologist on May 6, June 24 and June 25, 2008. Field
surveys were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and to document Waters of the US.
Published information regarding the study area and region and water resources was derived from a number of
resources. This information is provided in the ERTR, dated October 8, 2008.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed using the three-parameter approach as prescribed in
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Supplementary technical literature describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and
hydrological indicators were also utilized. Surface waters at the Project Site were evaluated and classified
based on a preponderance of perennial stream characteristics as defined in NCDWQ's Identification Methods
for the Origins oflntermittent and Perennial Streams, Version 3.1 (February 28, 2005) and evaluated using
the most recent version of the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet.
Two jurisdictional wetlands were observed within the Project Site (Figure 6). They are characteristic of
floodplain, or riparian wetlands. Their overall appearance has been altered as a result of livestock compaction
and grazing; however, they continue to function as jurisdictional wetlands. This compaction and grazing has
helped to better define these areas, which remain saturated and sometimes inundated throughout the growing
season. Their overall functions and benefits include flood attenuation, pollutant removal and wildlife habitat.
Routine on-site wetland determination data forms are provided in Appendix 7.
The upper portion of the UT was inundated during the field surveys. This inundation was recent and
appeared to be the result of an earthen beaver dam situated approximately 200 feet downstream of the
northern property boundary. During the wetland delineation, the area was still inundated, although water
levels were approximately half of their observed elevation during the existing condition surveys. This area
was not considered jurisdictional at the time of the delineation. It will become jurisdictional within several
years if the dam is not removed.
The verification was completed on November 5, 2008 by Mr. John Thomas with the USACE. A copy is
provided in Appendix 8.
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
Hydrology at the Project Site is based on observed characteristics. No monitoring gages, wells or other
methods of determining hydrology was implemented as part of this project. Initial field observations in
December depicted inundation throughout the two wetland areas. These areas remained inundated through
early spring and dried up as rainfall amounts in May, June and July were essentially non-existent. The
hydrology falls under the palustrine characterization, according to Cowardin et.al. (1979). The palustrine
classification includes all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent
mosses or lichens and all such tidal wetlands where ocean-derived salinities are below 0.5 ppt (Cowardin
et.al., 1979).
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 18
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
5.3 Soil Characterization
As previously mentioned, the soils underlying the project site, including the two jurisdictional wetland areas,
are dominated by the Chewacla Series. These soils are considered very deep and somewhat poorly drained.
They are restricted primarily to the floodplain areas situated along Piedmont river and stream valleys. These
soils have formed from recent alluvium. Slopes range from zero to two percent and permeability is moderate.
Chewacla soils are listed as Hydric B soils. Hydric soils are soils that are saturated, flooded or ponded long
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic vegetation (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Hydric A soils are those map units denoted
entirely as hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major component while Hydric B soils are those map units
with inclusions of hydric soils or wet spots.
Additional information pertaining to the Chewacla series is presented in Section 2.3. Site specific soil data is
provided on the routine on-site wetland determination data forms in Appendix 7.
5.4 Vegetative Community Type Descriptions Disturbance History
The vegetative community type descriptions and disturbance history for the wetland areas are described in
Section 3.9 under the Agricultural/Pastureland community. Under normal conditions, this area would likely
fall under the Piedmont Alluvial Forest community type; however, current landuses maintain these two areas
as active pastureland. Vegetation is kept in a very low state of natural succession and restricted primarily to
herbaceous-type species.
The disturbance history of these two areas also follows the discussion in Section 3.9.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 19
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
6.0 Reference Wetland
The area immediately south of the easement along Sandy Creek was utilized as a reference wetland for
vegetation comparisons. This area exhibited the characteristics of a jurisdictional wetland (soils, hydrology
and vegetation). It is located within the active floodplain of Sandy Creek. Figure 8b denotes its location with
regard to the Project Site while Figure 9b displays its watershed. Routine on-site data forms are presented in
Appendix 9.
6.1 Hydrological Characterization
The hydrology associated with the reference wetland is likely derived from a combination of surface runoff
and overbank flooding. Situated along the toe of the southern floodplain slope, the wetland area collects
surface runoff into depressional areas that range in size from 20 to 65 feet in length and no more than 20 feet
in width. During the field reconnaissance conducted during July 2008, no areas of inundation or saturation
were observed. In September 2008 however, inundation and saturation was commonly observed throughout
these areas. The county, as well as the majority of the state has been in a drought for several years. Less than
average rainfall has lowered groundwater elevations. During August and September 2008, Randolph County
and the majority of the state received ample rainfall, thus temporarily increasing groundwater elevations.
No gages or wells were established or monitored in this wetland area. Since the project involves only the
enhancement of existing jurisdictional wetlands, particularly the planting of trees and exclusion of livestock,
hydrologic data collection was not necessary. The reference wetland area is within one-quarter mile of the
wetland enhancement areas and appears to exhibit the same hydrological parameters.
6.2 Soil Characterization
The soils underlying the reference wetland are mapped as Chewacla loam (Figure 10b). According to Wyatt
(2006), Chewacla loam exhibits a yellowish brown loam surface layer and yellowish brown loam subsoil
with pale brown, dark yellowish brown, strong brown and light gray mottles. Reddish brown and manganese
concretions exist deeper along the profile. The underlying material is light brownish gray clay loam that has
strong brown mottles and many black and reddish brown manganese concretions.
Chewacla soils are slightly acid to very strongly acid, except where surface layers have been limed (Wyatt,
2006). The redoximorphic features generally include iron depletions within a depth of 24 inches. These
depletions exist as masses of iron accumulation in shades of brown, black or red. Some of the sub-horizons
do not exhibit a dominant matrix hue but have iron depletions and masses of iron accumulation in shades of
brown, red or gray (Wyatt 2006).
As previously mentioned in Section 2.3, these soils are formed in recent alluvium. They are very deep and
classified as somewhat poorly drained.
6.3 Vegetative Community Type Descriptions and Disturbance History
The reference wetland is with the Piedmont Alluvial Forest community, as described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990). This community exists along Sandy Creek and is described in detail in Section 3.9. Several
additional vegetative species were observed, including American elm in the canopy and boxelder (Acer
negundo) and ironwood (Carpinus carohniana) within the understory. The herbaceous layer is sparse due to
the limited light that reaches the forest floor. Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus) was observed along the edges
of the depressions. This community is shown on Figure l lb.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 20
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
This area appears to have been free from disturbance for the past several decades. Canopy vegetation is
mature and similar in age. No determinations were made however on the exact age of this area. Immediately
south of the area and outside of the floodplain associated with Sandy Creek, is Northeastern Randolph
Middle School.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 21
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
7.0 Project Site Restoration Plan
7.1 Notes on Stream Design
Stream designs were based on the convergence of a number of factors, including site indicators, reference
data, hydraulic geometry relationships, sediment transport calculations and Project Site constraints.
7.1.1 Justification for the Level of Intervention
Based on the existing conditions assessment, jurisdictional determinations and preliminary design, the
proposed stream restoration along the UT was changed to enhancement (Level II). After considering the
current state of the channel in terms of floodplain connection, dimensional morphology, the presence of
intermittent mature vegetation, watershed trajectory and the nature of the of the pasture stressors,
enhancement was ultimately deemed the optimal level of intervention for the Project Site. Rehabilitation of
the channels pattern in the form of a new alignment meandering through the riparian wetland features was
initially considered and although this could deliver immediate diversification of bedform, the existing
floodplain connection and wetland hydrology coupled with the presence of some mature vegetation made
enhancement the optimal choice. That is, an optimized level of uplift for a given level of disturbance. It is
intended that the combination of bank stabilization for those areas subject to intense cattle traffic, installation
of instream structures designed to maintain the existing floodplain connection and the incorporation of large
plantings in the voids between mature vegetation in the near bank region will provide vertical and lateral
stability, shading, organic mater input and added instream wood derived habitat. The sandbed nature of this
channel makes the latter particularly important in terms of maintaining instream habitat quality and quantity,
especially in the absence of immediate reintroduction of pattern. High complexity in regard to this element
will not be realized within standard project evaluation timeframes, but with the incorporation of larger
plantings, existing mature vegetation, and structures, observable uplift in instream habitat complexity will be
realized within the monitoring timeframe, continually increasing with progression into stewardship.
Stream enhancement will follow methodologies consistent with a Priority Level IV Restoration. This
enhancement will include isolated channel work concentrated in a manner that provides the potential for both
terrestrial and aquatic uplift without the impacts of constructing a new channel. Livestock will be excluded in
their entirety from the Conservation Easement area via appropriate fencing. This fencing will provide long-
term protection of the easement from livestock, as well as other future pressures. The streambanks along the
UT will be resloped and/or reshaped where necessary. The design will remove the existing beaver dams
along the channel, provide floodplain benching in areas with high bank height ratios and implement boulder
and wood-type structures to provide grade control, meander protection and additional aquatic habitat. The
entire easement area will be reforested with native vegetation, including the two jurisdictional wetlands along
either side of the UT. The proposed stream enhancement will not alter the hydraulics of the floodplain. It will
greatly enhance the aquatic habitat along the UT, as well as reduce bank erosion and downstream sediment
loading. In addition, the results will include the input of local fine organic matter, wood, thermoregulation
and cover ultimately further contributing to the overall ecological uplift of the project.
A HEC-RAS model was completed with the purpose of verifying that there would be no hydraulic trespass
and to observe the impact of the proposed channel on the FEMA regulated 100-year water surface and
encroachments. A summary of this analysis is provided in Section 7.4.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 22
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
7.2 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
Current landuse is the main reason for degradation throughout the Project Site. Livestock are offered no
barriers within the property confines along Sandy Creek or its UT. Riparian area degradation, including
compaction and grazing, is evident throughout the riparian zones along both channels. Stream degradation is
most obvious along the UT. Cattle-hoof shear and compaction has substantially altered the natural
morphology. Sandy Creek, however, remains relatively stable. This is due to its overall size and limited
number of livestock access points. By removing livestock from the easement area, incorporating stabilization
along the existing reach and supplementing vegetation, the project will uplift existing natural and biological
processes. It will also improve the overall function and habitat associated with the stream channel and
riparian areas.
The overall goals and objectives of this project are to provide an ecological uplift to the site and surrounding
areas. This uplift will be accomplished by enhancing the primary stream, wetland and buffer functions and
values associated with nutrient removal and transformation, sediment reduction and retention, flood-flow
attenuation and wildlife (both aquatic and terrestrial) habitat. By restoring the physical and biological
integrity of the resource, reducing pollutant loadings and improving and protecting water quality, this project
will aid in benefiting the environment for our future generations. The Charles Williams Site provides and
excellent opportunity to enhance the riparian zone on lands that are currently kept in a very low state of
natural succession.
Existing watershed and project stressors at the Project Site appear to be generated predominately by livestock
and their current access to the stream, floodplain and wetland areas. The causes include channel degradation,
systemic sedimentation, buffer deforestation, riparian compaction, compaction of wetland vegetation and
soils, eutrophication and promotion of invasive, non-native vegetation biomass and seed sources. The effects
with regard to ecological services and/or functions lost and requiring replacement and/or enhancement are
transport of watershed sediments in equilibrium, treatment of lateral overland flow, treatment of
groundwater, provision of instream habitat, provision of wetland habitat, provision of riparian buffer habitat,
processing of organic matter inputs and temporary sediment storage.
Based on this information, the response or project goals at the Project Site are to reduce nutrient and
sediment water quality stressors, provide for uplift in water quality functions, improve instream and wetland
aquatic habitat, including riparian terrestrial habitat and provide for greater overall instream and wetland
habitat complexity and quality. The proposed remedies or project objectives are to exclude livestock in their
entirety from easement area, install stream structures and plantings designed to maintain vertical stability,
lateral stability and habitat, revegetate and supplement those areas lacking suitable vegetation along the
easement area and rip the existing compacted soils throughout the areas void of woody vegetation.
7.2.1 Designed Channel Classification and Wetland Type
This project will utilize Priority Level IV restoration methodologies along the UT. The Priority Level IV
Protocols are based on a rating system created by David L. Rosgen, Ph.D., PH, Wildland Hydrology, Inc. His
rating system is separated into four main categories, identified and described as the Priority Levels I through
IV of Restoration (Rosgen, 1997). Priority Level IV restoration includes the in-place stabilization of the
existing channel. Active connection to the existing floodplain will be maintained. The overall advantages are
that it allows for site specific enhancement, limits the overall construction footprint and impact and is less
detrimental to the existing terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within the Project Site. Stream enhancement
designs demonstrate the steps required for the conversion of an unstable C5 stream type to a stable C5 stream
type. Design Sheets 3 and 4 provide a conceptual plan for implementation.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 23
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
The jurisdictional wetlands and buffers within the project area will be enhanced to depict a Piedmont
Alluvial Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). A description of this community type is
provided in Section 3.9.
7.2.2 Tarizet Wetland and Buffer Communities
As mentioned above, target wetland and buffer communities will be categorized under the Piedmont Alluvial
Forest community classification. The jurisdictional wetland areas will be transformed from herbaceous-
dominated community types to those with woody stems and ultimately, canopy species. The buffer areas
along Sandy Creek will be enhanced with a combination of canopy and sub-canopy species while the buffer
areas along the UT will undergo the same prescription as the wetland areas.
7.3 Sediment Transport Analysis
Sediment analyses are generally divided into measurements of bedload and suspended sediment, changes in
sediment storage, size distributions and source areas. Sediment plays a major role in the influence of the
channel stability and morphology (Rosgen, 1996). A stable stream has the capacity to move its sediment load
without aggrading or degrading. Washload is normally composed of fine sands, silts and clays transported in
suspension at a rate that is determined by availability and not hydraulically controlled. Bedload is transported
by rolling, sliding, or hopping (saltating) along the bed. At higher discharges, some portion of the bedload
can be suspended, especially controlled by the size and nature of the bed material and hydraulic conditions
(Hey and Rosgen, 1997).
The bedload associated with the existing UT is predominately sand. Calculations for competency including
entrainment (pavement/subpavement) and shear (Shield's) are valid for gravel bed channels. With regard to
sand bed channels, supply is the main concern. It is calculated with field data to determine stream power and
sediment capacity. Field data associated with the UT was not collected since the existing channel size was
consistent with the predicted discharge for the watershed nor does the design include significant changes to
the existing channel's dimension, pattern or profile. No evidence of aggradation or degradation was observed
and cross section surveys show little incision. Streambank erosion is present; however, it appears to be
derived mainly from livestock access and the overall lack of streamside vegetation. The channel appears to
be currently transporting its load in equilibrium.
7.4 HEC-RAS Analysis
As previously discussed, both Sandy Creek and its UT are situated within a FEMA limited detail study area
with regulated non-encroachments Project implementation will not impact any structures, dwellings or other
human-related aspects. The HEC-RAS model output is provided in Appendix 10. Due to the high Manning's
"N" values in the existing model within the project limits, no changes will need to be made to account for the
enhancement of streams, wetland and buffers at the Project Site. A No-Rise Certification will be completed
for the UT and a No-Impact Certification for Sandy Creek.
Ecological Engineering completed the EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist and submitted copies to the
Randolph County Floodplain Administrator, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), NC Floodplain
Mapping Unit and EEP. This form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design
phase of EEP projects. A copy of the completed form is provided in Appendix 11.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 24
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
7.5 Stormwater Best Management Practices
The Randolph Soil and Water District will be responsible for the implementation of agricultural BMPs on the
Project Site. These BMPs include livestock exclusion fencing and alternative watering plans. No other BMPs
are planned as part of project implementation.
7.6 Hydrological Modifications
No hydrological modifications are proposed aside from the enhancement of the existing stream channel
associated with the UT.
7.7 Soil Restoration
Project implementation will involve only minor excavation and along the UT. No other grading, excavation
or fill is anticipated within the Project Site. During the excavation process, topsoil will be stockpiled aside
from subsoil, where feasible and utilized as a dressing once the desired amount of subsoil has been removed.
Pasture areas will be ripped and disked to reduce the overall amount of current compaction. Fertilizer and
seeding will be distributed per the NC Division of Land Quality's (NCDLQ) recommended rates, unless the
contractor performs a soil test to determine the prescribed amounts. This soil test may be submitted prior to
implementation. Table 8 details soil preparation methodologies and amendment summaries per vegetated
zone.
7.8 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Natural plant community restoration will follow descriptions of community types by Schafale and Weakley
(1990), reference wetland and stream vegetation types and professional judgment. The designed natural
community is a Piedmont Alluvial Forest. This forest, under natural conditions, may transition into a
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest along the wetter and depressional areas or a mesic hardwood forest-
type along the upland areas. The Project Site is situated almost in its entirety within an active floodplain
setting.
The Piedmont Alluvial Forest community is described in Section 3.9. It is distinguished from mesic
communities by location in a floodplain and the presence of alluvial species such as sycamore, river birch
and boxelder. It is distinguished from communities of larger floodplains, such as the Piedmont Levee Forest,
Swamp Forest and Bottomland Hardwood Forest, by the absence or poor development of the depositional
fluvial landforms which determine vegetation. Levees, sloughs and ridges may be visible in parts of Alluvial
Forest communities but they are generally small and often on the same size scale as individual trees
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
According to Schafale and Weakley (1990), variation within this community type is related to frequency and
recentness of destructive flooding. Individual sites may vary due to different alluvial material and its effect
on soil fertility. However, nearly all of the alluvial sites are more fertile than their surrounding uplands
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
7.8.1 Planting Plan
The planting plan for the Project Site will provide post-construction erosion control and habitat enhancement.
It will also attempt to blend existing vegetative communities into the recently enhanced areas. Plantings in
the buffer areas will include native species appropriate for the Piedmont physiographic province and the
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 25
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Project Site. A variety of trees and shrubs will be planted to provide cover and habitat for wildlife as well as
soil stabilization.
The Project Site is divided into three vegetated zones. These zones were identified based on landscape
position and hydrology. Zone 1, also referred to as the Streamside Area, is situated along both sides of the
UT and covers the area from bankfull outward approximately ten feet. Zone 2 covers the Riparian Areas
along both the UT and Sandy Creek aside from the jurisdictional wetland areas, which are included in Zone
3. The proposed planting plan is shown on Design Sheet 5.
Prior to the planting of trees and shrubs, all disturbed areas associated with the Project Site will be seeded
first with a temporary seed mix. This mix will include one of the following seed types:
• grain rye (Secale cereale);
• brown-top millet (Panicum ramosum);
• German millet (Setaria italica); or
• orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata).
The seed material will be selected according to the time period selected for implementation. Currently,
implementation is proposed for the spring of 2010, in which grain rye or orchard grass would be the
preferred seed mix. Table 9 summarizes this data, including time periods and application rates.
The permanent seed mix will be distributed per vegetated zone. The permanent seed mix will be applied at a
rate of approximately 20 lbs/acre, although the individual species will be different in each zone. Virginia
wild rye (Elymus virginicus), autumn bentgrass (Agrostis perennans) and showy tick trefoil (Desmodium
canadense) will be utilized in all three zones. While switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), beggar ticks (Bidens
aristosa), coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata), deer tongue (Panicum clandestinum), bushy bluestem
(Andropogon glomeratus), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), partridge pea (Chamaecrista
fasiculata), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans) and river oats (Uniola latifolia) will be planted along the
Streamside Area and Riparian Area and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea), blue flag (Iris versicolor), black-
eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta), blue vervain (Verbena hastata), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis), soft rush
(Juncus effusus) and Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum) are planted within the Wetland
Area. A complete description of each zone, its proposed species and planting percentages and mix rates is
provided in Table 9.
The planting of subcanopy and shrubs species will dominate Zone 1. Due to the location and the flooding
regime, these species must be conducive to periodic flooding. Species such as black willow, silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum), tag alder and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) will be planted. These species will be
inserted as live stakes, except for tag alder, which will be planted as tublings. Table 10 provides more
detailed information regarding this and the other two planting zones.
Vegetation will be planted in a random fashion in an effort to mimic natural plant communities. Colonization
of local herbaceous vegetation will inevitably occur, which will provide additional soil stability. Tree species
will be planted as bare root stock on random eight-foot centers at a frequency of approximately 680 stems
per acre. Shrub species will be dispersed among the tree species also on random eight-foot centers. Larger
plant stock, if available, will be established in areas immediately adjacent to channel structures. These areas
will also receive much denser plantings in order to expedite the stabilization of the soil through greater
rooting mass. Planting stock will be culled to remove inferior specimens, allowing only healthy, viable stock
to be planted at the Project Site. Plantings will be dormant and will be performed to the extent practicable
between November 3rd and March 30tH
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 26
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
The Riparian Area will be planted with a mix of bare-rooted seedlings including river birch, sugarberry,
green ash, swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), willow oak, sycamore, American elm, ironwood,
spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Approximately 20 percent of the
plant stock utilized in Zone 2 will consist of containerized units. These units will be a minimum size of one
gallon. Zone 3 will be planted with the same species aside from American elm, spicebush and willow oak.
These species will be replaced with paw paw (Asimina triloba), winterberry (Ilex verticillata) and Virginia
willow (Itea virginica). Due to the existing amount of beaver activity at and surrounding the Project Site,
larger plant stock including the containerized units will be protected via tree collars or other appropriate
beaver exclusion devices.
7.8.2 Invasive Species Management
7.8.2.1 Vegetative Species
Several invasive species were observed within the Project Site. These species included Chinese privet,
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Japanese grass. If less unrestricted, these species will become the
dominant species within and surrounding the Project Site. Therefore, steps must be followed to ensure that
these species are controlled to a point where they do not provide competition for native vegetative species.
Control methods are widely variable concerning species types and density. Invasive species within the
Project Site are competing with native vegetation; however, they are in the process of being controlled by
existing landuse variables, such as cattle browse and periodic mowing. Once cattle are restricted from the
area and the site is allowed to undergo natural succession, this vegetation will compete with native and
planted vegetation.
Initially, mechanical control of Chinese privet and multiflora rose species is the preferred method.
Mechanical control will significantly reduce the plant statures, whereby stimulating a cluster of young
growth, which provide an easier, more effective herbicide application. Mechanical control of these species
should be done in early spring or late fall. Applications of four to six pints per acre of imazapyr herbicide
during the active growing season will provide effective control of these species, including Japanese grass.
This herbicide will be applied via a backpack sprayer directly to each individual. No other vegetation will be
treated during this time. The herbicide will not come in contact with any areas of standing water.
The construction contractor will provide mechanized removal for stems of Chinese privet and multiflora
rose. These individuals will be removed in their entirety and disposed in an appropriate manner.
It is anticipated that invasive species management will occur throughout the monitoring period. As seedbeds
and their associated soils are disturbed, it is likely that other invasive species may appear within the Project
Site. Periodical assessments will be conducted to determine if these species are posing a threat to native
population levels. The threats will be determined on an annual basis as well as, their remedial activities, as
necessary.
7.8.2.2 Non-Vegetative Species
Beaver activity was observed throughout the Project Site and surrounding areas. This species, though not
technically classified as an invasive species, can significantly affect the overall success of the project. EEP
will contract with the NCWRC or other appropriate entity to remove and/or relocate the existing beavers
from the Project Site during the implementation and monitoring time periods.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 27
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
8.0 Performance Criteria
Performance criteria set forth for this project will be provided according to current EEP monitoring criteria
and format. It will cover stream, wetland, and vegetation assessments.
8.1 Streams
Enhancement designs for the UT will remain consistent with the parameters associated with a C stream type.
C-stream types are slightly entrenched, meandering, gravel dominated, riffle-pool channels with well
developed floodplains. Pool to pool spacing for this stream type averages five-to-seven bankfull channel
widths in length. The stream banks are generally composed of sand and gravel material, with stream beds
exhibiting little difference in pavement and sub-pavement material composition. Rates of lateral migration
are influenced by the presence and condition of riparian vegetation. The C-stream type, is best characterized
by the presence of point bars and other depositional features, it is very susceptible to shifts in both lateral and
vertical stability caused by direct channel disturbance and changes in the flow and sediment regimes of the
contributing watershed. As a result, stream success criteria will be based on overall stability.
Stream dimensions and profiles will be assessed according to the protocols stated in the US Army Corps of
Engineers Stream Mitigation Guidelines (dated 2003) and current EEP guidelines. Based on the overall
length of the project, monitoring activities will assess the entire length of the UT. All bankfull events will be
documented. The hydrological assessment period will not end until at least two bankfull events, occurring in
separate years, are reported. A bank stability assessment using the BEHI methodology will be performed
during Year 5, post-construction. Problem areas will be documented and color coded on a plan view map. In
addition, these areas will also be discussed in a table. Photographs will depict the annual progress of the
project. Tables will be provided documenting stability and quantitative summary data. All of this information
will be summarized and included within the yearly monitoring report.
8.2 Wetlands
Wetland enhancement is proposed along both wetland areas within the project area. This enhancement
includes the removal of livestock, the installation of exclusion fencing and the supplemental planting of
vegetation. No hydrological or soil modifications are proposed. In order to determine success for these two
areas, EEP will only assess vegetation survival. Vegetation requirements for mitigation purposes state that
260 stems/acre must be viable for success after the five year monitoring period. Should the performance
criteria not be met during the monitoring period, EEP will request a remediation proposal, detailing
corrective actions and/or maintenance actions proposed, and an implementation schedule.
The vegetation will be assessed using several variables. The Mitigation Plan will outline these variables,
including plot layout locations, transect locations and/or any other methods pertinent to determining
vegetation success. Stem counts will be conducted within strategically placed vegetation plots. The plots
locations will be determined once implementation has been completed. Photos will also be provided as part
of this task. One this is complete, all information will be summarized with the stream assessment information
and inserted into the monitoring report.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 28
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
8.3 Vegetation
Riparian buffer enhancement is proposed along Sandy Creek. This enhancement follows the same approach
as the wetland enhancement mentioned in the previous sub-section. It will be monitored using the same
format with regard to vegetation success.
The Mitigation Plan will outline these variables, including plot layout locations, transect locations and/or any
other methods pertinent to determining vegetation success. Stem counts will be conducted within
strategically placed vegetation plots in the same manner as within the wetland areas. The plots locations will
be determined once implementation has been completed. Photos will also be provided as part of this task.
Upon completion, this information will be summarized with the stream assessment and wetland assessment
information and inserted into the monitoring report.
8.4 Schedule and Reporting
Monitoring reports will be submitted to the regulatory agencies by EEP on an annual basis. The first-year of
monitoring will include two submittals; the As-Built drawings and the First Year Annual Monitoring Report.
All drawings and monitoring will follow EEP protocols established during the project period. It is understood
that EEP will coordinate any necessary monitoring report submittals with the regulatory agencies. If the
monitoring reports indicate any deficiencies in achieving the success criteria on schedule, EEP will
coordinate with the resource agencies, as applicable, to determine the extent of remedial actions necessary. In
some cases EEP may be required to submit remedial action plan, as necessary, as part of the annual
monitoring report. Vegetative monitoring will be conducted during the late summer months (growing season)
of each monitoring year. Monitoring reports will be provided no later than December 15. The proposed
schedule is provided below detailing the monitoring dates.
Proposed Monitoring Schedule
March 2010 Complete construction/planting activities.
May 2010 Submit As-Built Drawings and Mitigation Plan report in draft format.
October 2010 Conduct first year monitoring activities.
December 2010 Submit first year Monitoring Report in draft format.
September 2011 Conduct second year monitoring activities
December 2011 Submit second year Monitoring Report in draft format.
September 2012 Conduct third year monitoring activities
December 2012 Submit third year Monitoring Report in draft format.
September 2013 Conduct fourth year monitoring activities
December 2013 Submit fourth year Monitoring Report in draft format.
September 2014 Conduct fifth year monitoring activities
December 2014 Submit fifth year Monitoring Report in draft format.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 29
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
9.0 References
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitat of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior. US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Ecological Engineering, 2008. Charles Williams Stream, Wetland and Buffer Site, Environmental Resources
Technical Report. Prepared for DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR), 2008. The EDR Radius Map with Geo-Check - Charles Williams
Site. Inquiry No. 2177276.2s. 51pp.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual; Technical Report Y-87-
1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister and J.R. Stauffer, Jr., 1980 et seq. Atlas
of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina Museum of Natural History, North Carolina
Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Biological Survey 41980-12.
Martof, Bernard S., William M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey, Julian R. Harrison and Jack Dermid, 1980.
Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, NC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2008. Official Series Descriptions. Available:
hLtp://www.2ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/data.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2009.
Draft Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009. Available via:
hLtp://www.nceep.neL/pages/lwplanning.htm.).
North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2008a. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by County.
Available at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2008b. Surface Water Classifications. Available at:
httD://h2o.enr.state.nc.us
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2006. Stream Identification Form, Version 3. 1,
Effective February 28, 2005. Available at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/documents.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2005a. Basinwide Planning Program, 2005 Cape Fear
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Available at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2005b. Identification Methods for the Origins of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams, Version 3.1. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management; Raleigh, NC.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 30
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in
North Carolina - 4th Version. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management; Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), 2008. Element Search Results, Randolph County,
North Carolina. Available at: http://149.168.1.196/nhp/quad.html.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell, 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Randolph County Department of Planning and Development (RCDPD), 2002. Randolph County Growth
Management Plan. Available: http://www.co.randolph.nc.us.
Rosgen, D.L., 1999. River Restoration and Natural Channel Design Short Course and Manual. Wildland
Hydrology, Inc. Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, David L., 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Wildland Hydrology,
Inc., Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, Dave, 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, A
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Simon, A. and C.R. Hupp, 1986. Channel Evolution in Modified Tennessee Streams. In: Proceedings of the
4th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada. US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC, 5.71-5.82.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2006. Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet, Updated August
2003. Web: http://www.saw.usace.anny.mil/wetlands/Forms/stream_quality.pdf
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2008. Stream Channel Succession: Watershed Assessment
of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSS). Available: htt p://www.epa.gov/WARSSS.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of
Concern, and Candidate Species, Randolph County, North Carolina. Updated January 31, 2008.
Available at: http://nc-es.fivs.gov/es/cpiylist/randolph.html.
Wyatt, Perry W., 2006. Soil Survey of Randolph County, North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the US Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service; NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources; NC Agricultural Research
Service; NC Cooperative Extension Service; Randolph County Soil and Water Conservation District;
and Randolph County Board of Commissioners.
Final Stream Restoration Plan Page
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County, NC 31
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Structure
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80
o ?
bA
Project Component or °? i a $ u
Reach ID W F=, C4 ?4 Stationing Comment
Unnamed Tributary 1,747.74 Ell P4 1
747.74 If 10+00 to _ Entire reach.
if , 27+47.74
Riverine Wetland Area east of the
Area A 1.65 ac E - 1.65 ac Unnamed Tributary.
Riverine Wetland 0
31 ac E - 0
31 ac _ Area west of the
Area B . . Unnamed Tributary
Riparian Buffer Area adjacent to Sandy
Enhancement 4.68 ac E - - - 4.68 ac Creek
Component Summations
Riparian Wetland Ac Non-

Restoration Level
Stream
(If)

Riverine

Non-riverine Riparian
Wetland
(Ac)

Upland (Ac)

Buffer (Ac)

BMP
Enhancement (Level 11) 1,747.74 - - - - - -
Enhancement - 1.96 - - - 4.68 -
Totals 1.747.74 1 .96 - - 4.68 -
Mitigation Activity Multipliers*
Riparian Wetland (Ac) Non-

Restoration Level
Stream
(If)

Riverine

Non-riverine Riparian
Wetland
Ac

Upland (Ac)
Buffer
(Ac)

BMP
Enhancement (Level 11) 1,165.16 - - - - - -
Enhancement - 0.98 - - - 1.56 -
Totals 1.165.16 0.98 - - 1.56 -
* These summations assume the following Mitigation Activity Multipliers:
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) - 1.5
Wetland Enhancement - 2.0
Riparian Buffer Enhancement - 3.0
* * Denotes only the amount available for Buffer Credit as per the existing MCA. This buffer amount does not include the buffer
along the UT.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80
Activity or Report Data Collection
Complete Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan September 2008 May 2009
Final Design - Construction Plans NA NA
Construction NA NA
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area NA NA
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area NA NA
Vegetative plantings applied to entire project area NA NA
Mitigation Plan/ As-built (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline) NA NA
Year 1 Monitoring NA NA
Year 2 Monitoring NA NA
Year 3 Monitoring NA NA
Year 4 Monitoring NA NA
Year 5 Monitoring NA NA
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80
Designer Ecological Engineering, LLP
128 Raleigh Street, Holly Springs, NC 27540
Jenny S. Fleming, PE [phone]
Construction Contractor Firm Information/Address
NA
Planting Contractor Firm Information/Address
NA
Seeding Contractor Company Information/Address
NA
Seed Mix Sources Company and Contact Phone
NA
Nursery Stock Suppliers Company and Contact Phone
NA
Monitoring Performers Firm Information/Address
NA
Stream Monitoring POC POC name and phone
NA
Vegetation Monitoring POC POC name and phone
NA
Wetland Monitoring POC POC name and phone
NA
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80
Project County Randolph
Physiographic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Southern Outer Piedmont/ Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin Cape Fear
USGS FIUC for Project 14 digit) 03030003020010
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project 03-06-09
Within Extent of EEP Watershed Plan No
WRC Classification Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated 100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase Yes
Restoration Comp onent Attribute Table
Unnamed Tributary Sand Creek
Drainage Area 4.9 square miles 34.0 square miles
Stream Order Three Four
Restored Length (feet) 1,747.74 linear feet (Ell) NA
Perennial or Intermittent Perennial Perennial
Watershed type (Rural, Urban, Developing, etc.) Rural Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.)
Residential
Ag-Row Crop
Ag-Livestock
Forested
Commercial
2%
7%
35%
55%
1%
5%
14%
25%
50%
6%
Watershed impervious cover (%) 5 to 6% 7 to 8%
NCDWQ AU/Index Number Sandy Creek 17-16-(1)
NCDWQ classification WS-III
303d listed? No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor Not Applicable
Total acreage of easement 18.0 acres
Total vegetated acreage within the easement 13.9 acres
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration 13.9 acres (designed)
Rosgen classification of pre-existing Unstable C5 (UT only)
Rosgen classification of As-built C5 proposed (UT only)
Valley type VIII
Valley slope <2%
Valley side slope range (e.g. 2-3%) 2 to 15%
Valley toe slope range (e.g. 2-3% 2 to 6%
Cowardin classification R2UB2
Trout waters designation No
Species of concern, endangered, etc.? (Y/N) No
Dominant soil series and characteristics Chewacla loam
Depth >60 inches
Clay % 10 to 35%
Soil Erodibility Factor (K) 5
Soil Loss Tolerance (T) 5
Table 5. Morphological Design Table
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80
Item Existing
Conditions Designed
Conditions Reference Reach
Stream & Location UT Sandy Creek
Randolph Co., NC UT Sandy Creek
Randolph Co., NC Terrible Creek,
Wake Co., NC
1. Stream Type Unstable C5 C5 C5
2. Drainage Area 4.9 sq. mi 4.9 sq. mi 2.30 sq. mi
3. Bankfull Width (Wbkf) ft 25.2 25.5 19.2-19.3
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) ft 1.59 1.65 1.2-1.7
5. Width/Depth Ratio (Wbk? dbkf) 15.8 15.5 11.5-16.5
6. Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (Abkf) ft 40.0 42.0 22.3-32.5
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (Vbkf) fps 3.75 3.57 4.50
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) cfs 150.0 150.0 122.7
9. Maximum Bankfull Depth (dm?) ft 2.6 2.5 1.8-2.4
10. Ratio of Low Bank Height to Max. Bankfull Depth (lbh/dm?) 1.0 1.0 1.1-1.4
11. Width of Floodprone Area (W a) ft 300+ 300+ 73.4-79.5
12. Entrenchment Ratio (W ,/Wbkf) >15 >15 3.8-4.2
13. Meander Length (Lm) ft 73.0-216.0 179.1 - 225.6 80.4-180.0
14. Ratio of Meander Length to Bankfull Width (Lm/Wbkf) 2.9-8.6 7.0-9.0 4.2-9.4
15. Radius of Curvature (Rc) ft 15.0-95.0 50.0-75.0 20.3-41.3
16. Ratio of Radius of Curvature to Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf) 0.6-3.8 2.0-3.0 1.0-2.2
17. Belt Width (Wbit) ft 31.7-62.3 71.8-138.2 30.8-69.5
18. Meander Width Ratio (Wbit/Wbkf) 1.3-2.5 2.8-5.5 3.6-19.3
19. Arc Length (La) ft 21.2-81.4 83.2-192.6 NA
20. Ratio of Arc Length to Bankfull Width (La/Wbkf) 0.8-3.2 3.3-7.6 NA
21. Sinuosity (Stream Length/ Valley Distance) 1.06 1.20 1.4
22. Valley Slope ft/ft 0.0015 0.0015 0.0069
23. Average Water Surface Slope (Say) ft/ft 0.0014 0.0012 0.0049
24. Pool Slope (S,,,,) ft/ft 0.0000 0.0000 0.000
25. Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope (S,,,,/ SaVO 0.0 0.0 0.0
26. Maximum Pool Depth (dl) ft 3.4 4.5 3.0
27. Ratio of Max. Pool Depth to Bankfull Mean Depth (d,..,/ dbkf) 2.2 2.7 1.8-2.5
28. Pool Width (W,,,,) ft 19.3 30.0 18.3-22.4
29. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width (WI/ Wbkf) 0.8 1.2 0.9-1.2
30. Bankfull Cross Sectional Area at Pool (A,,,,) ft 40.5 60.0 54.6-66.7
31. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area (A,,,,/ Abkf) 1.0 1.4 1.7-3.0
32. Pool to Pool Spacing (p-p) ft 56.0-194.0 97.4-194.0 11.6-88.6
33. Ratio of Pool to Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-p/ Wbkf) 2.2-7.7 3.9-6.4 0.6-4.6
34. Pool Length (Lp) ft 8.3-63.7 25.5-76.5 7.3-73.6
35. Ratio of Pool Length to Bankfull Width (Lp/ Wbkf) 0.3-2.5 1.0-3.0 0.4-3.8
36. Riffle Slope (Siff) ft/ft 0.013 0.008 0.008 - 0.073
37. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope (S;ff/ Say) 9.3 6.7 1.68-14.9
38. Maximum Riffle Depth (diff) ft 2.6 2.5 1.7-2.3
39. Ratio of Max. Riffle Depth to Bankfull Mean Depth (d, d dbkf) 1.6 1.5 1.4
40. Run Slope (S,,,r,) ft/ft 0.002 0.002 NA
41. Ratio of Run Slope to Average Slope (S,,,r,/ Say) 1.4 1.7 NA
42. Maximum Run Depth (d.) ft 3.0 3.0 NA
43. Ratio of Max. Run Depth to Bankfull Mean Depth (d,,,r,/ dbkf) 1.9 1.8 NA
44. Glide Slope (S iid,) ft/ft 0.000 0.001 NA
45. Ratio of Glide Slope to Average Slope (S h&/ Say) 0.0 0.8 NA
46. Maximum Glide Depth ( hd,) ft 3.0 3.0 NA
47. Ratio of Max. Glide Depth to Bankfull Mean Depth ( hd,/ dbkf) 1.9 1.8 NA
Table 5. Morphological Design Table Continued
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80
Particle Size Distribution of Channel Material (mm):
D16 0.12 0.12 0.22
D35 0.34 0.34 0.6
D50 0.55 0.55 1.8
D84 1.7 1.7 45.0
D95 3.6 3.6 80.0
Particle Size Distribution of Bar Material (mm):
D16 <2.0 <2.0 NA
D35 <2.0 <2.0 NA
D50 <2.0 <2.0 NA
D84 <2.0 <2.0 NA
D95 3.1 3.1 NA
Largest Particle on Bar 2.0 2.0 NA
Table 6. Cross Section Comparison
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80

XS#1 XS#2 XS#3 XS#4 XS#5 XS#6 XS#7 XS#8 XS#9 XS#10 XS#11
Feature Run Run Run Riffle Pool Run Run Run Run Run Run
Abkf
31.6 30.9 32.3 36.3 41.4 39.5 39.4 38.3 34.1 33.3 34.0
(sq. ft)
Wbkf 19.1 14.5 17.6 24.6 19.9 21.5 20.3 19.1 21.3 19.8 20.0
ft
Dmax
2.8 3.1 3.6 2.3 3.5 2.4 3.1 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.7
ft
Dmean
1.7 2.1 1.8 1.5 NA 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.7
(ft)
W/D 11.6 6.8 9.5 16.8 NA 11.7 10.5 9.6 13.3 11.7 11.8
ER >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 NA >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
Low
Bank 3.8 3.3 4.5 2.6 NA 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.8 3.1 3.0
Ht. (ft)
BHR 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.1 NA 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1
Vbkf
4.0 4.4 4.1 3.7 NA 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.0
ft/s
QbII
125 137 132 134 NA 131 135 137 131 133 136
(cfs)
Where:
Abkf = Bankfull Cross Sectional Area
Wbkf= Bankfull Width
Dmax = Maximum Bankfull Depth
Dm,a = Mean Bankfull Depth
W/D = Widthl Depth Ratio
ER = Entrenchment Ratio
BUR = Bank Height Ratio
Vbkf= Bankfull Velocity
Qbkf = Bankfull Discharge
Table 7. BEHI and Sediment Export Rates for Project Site Streams
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80
3 a o
o a

Segment/
Linear
W ?w
Time Point Reach Footage
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Ton/
Pre- UT Sandy 1
74.7 1
747.7 100 9.70
construction Creek , I , I I
Reference Terrible 948 r 2
500 100 6.36
Stream Creek ,
Table 8. Soil Preparation and Amendment Summary per Zone
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80

Zone 1- Streamside Area Acres 0.9
Mechanical
Treatment Approx.
Date Ground
Cover
Fabric Mulch Type Mulch
Density /
Thickness Nutrient
Amendments Nutrient
Total lbs'
Disking 1/10-3/10 Coir Wheat straw 75% cover Pellet Fertilizer TBD2
n/a 1/10-3/10 n/a n/a n/a Ground
Limestone TBD
Subtotal TBD

Zone 2 - Ri arian Area Acres 15.1
Mechanical
Treatment Approx.
Date Ground
Cover
Fabric Mulch Type Mulch
Density /
Thickness Nutrient
Amendments Nutrient
Total lbs
Herbicide 1/10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Ripping 1/10-3/10 n/a Wheat straw 75% cover Pellet Fertilizer TBD
n/a 1/10-3/10 n/a n/a n/a Ground
Limestone TBD
Subtotal TBD

Zone 3 - Wetland Area Acres 2.0
Mechanical
Treatment Approx.
Date Ground
Cover
Fabric Mulch Type Mulch
Density /
Thickness Nutrient
Amendments Nutrient
Total lbs
Ripping 1/10-3/10 n/a Wheat straw 75% cover Pellet Fertilizer TBD
n/a 1/10-3/10 n/a n/a n/a Ground
Limestone TBD
Subtotal TBD

Total TBD 18.0
Notes: ' Nutrient Total lbs will be determined by contractor upon the results of a soil test.
2 TBD = to be determined.
Herbicide applications will only be performed in areas exhibiting non-native species.
Ripping will be only performed in riparian and wetland areas void of tree and shrub species.
Table 9. Seeding Summary for Temporary and Permanent Vegetation per
Planting Zone
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80

Temporary Seeding Throughout Disturbed Areas Acres n/a
Year round Secale cereale Herb Grain rye 130 lbs/ac Single
May - September Panicum ramosum Herb Brown top millet 40 lbs/ac species to
May - September Setaria italica Herb German millet 25 lbs/ac be
September - March Dactylis glomerate Herb Orchard grass 15 lbs/ac applied

Zone 1- Streamside Area Permanent Seeding Acres 0.9
Approved Date Species Name Stratum Common Name Total lbs
nla Elymus virginicus Herb Virginia wild rye 3(15%)
nla Panicum virgatum Herb Switchgrass 3(15%)
nla Agrostis perennans Herb Autumn bentgrass 2(10%)
nla Bidens aristosa Herb Beggar ticks 2(10%) Mix to be
n/a Coreopsis lanceolata Herb Coreopsis 2(10%) applied at
n/a Panicum clandestinum Herb Deer tongue 2(10%)- rate of
n/a Andropogon glomeratus Herb Bushy bluestem 1(5%) approx.
n/a Schizachyrium scoparium Herb Little bluestem 1(5%) 20 lbs/
n/a Desmodium canadense Herb Showy tick trefoil -1(5%) acre
n/a Chamaecrista fasciculata Herb Partridge pea 1(5%)
nla Sorghastrum nutans Herb Indian grass 1(5%)
n/a Uniola latifolia Herb River oats 1(5%)
Subtotal 20(100'/.)

Zone 2 - Riparian Area Permanent Seeding Acres 15.1
Approved Date Species Name Stratum Common Name Total lbs
nla Elymus virginicus Herb Virginia wild rye 45(15%)
nla Panicum virgatum Herb Switchgrass 45(15%)
nla Agrostis perennans Herb Autumn bentgrass 30(10%)
nla Bidens aristosa Herb Beggar ticks 30(10%) Mix to be
n/a Coreopsis lanceolata Herb Coreopsis 30 (10%) applied at
n/a Panicum clandestinum Herb Deer tongue 30(10%) rate of
n/a Andropogon glomeratus Herb Bushy bluestem 15(5%) approx.
n/a Schizachyrium scoparium Herb Little bluestem 15(5%) 20 lbs/
n/a Desmodium canadense Herb Showy tick trefoil 15(5%) acre
n/a Chamaecrista fasciculata Herb Partridge pea 15(5%)
nla Sorghastrum nutans Herb Indian grass 15(5%)
n/a Uniola latifolia Herb River oats 15(5%)
Subtotal 300 100%

Zone 3 - Wetland Area Permanent Seeding Acres 2.0
Approved Date Species Name Stratum Common Name Total lbs
nla Elymus virginicus Herb Virginia wild rye 10(25%)
nla Agrostis perennans Herb Autumn bentgrass 10(25%)
n/a Carex vulpinoidea Herb Fox sedge 8(20%) Mix to be
n/a Iris versicolor Herb Blue flag 2 (5%) applied at
n/a Desmodium canadense Herb Showy tick trefoil 2(5%) rate of
nla Rudbeckia hirta Herb Black-eyed susan 2(5%) approx.
nla Verbena hastate Herb Blue vervain 2(5%) 20 lbs/
nla Lobelia cardinalis Herb Cardinal flower 2(5%) acre
nla Juncus effusus Herb Soft rush 1(2.5%)
nla Polygonum pennsylvanicum Herb Pennsylvania smartweed 1 (2.5%)
Subtotal 40(100'/.)
Total (Permanent Seeding) 360 18.0
Table 10. Planting Summary per Planting Zone
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501, EEP Project Number 80

Zone 1- Streamside Area Acres 0.9
Species Common Name Max
Spacing Unit
Type Size Stratum Indiv.
Spacing # of
Stems Total
lbs
Salix nigra Black willow 2' L 2 - 3' Subcanopy 4' 3,000 -
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood 2' L 2 - 3' Shrub 4' 3,000 -
Alnus serrulata Tag alder 10' T N/A Shrub 20' 800 -
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 2' L 2 - 3' Shrub 4' 3,000 -
Subtotal 9,800 -
Zone 2 - Riparian Area Acres 15.1
Species Common Name Max
Spacing Unit
Type Size Stratum Indiv.
Spacing # of
Stems Total
lbs
Betula nigra River birch 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Betula nigra River birch 8' C 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 200
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry 8' C 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 200 -
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 8' C 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 200 -
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak 8' C 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 200 -
Quercus phellos Willow oak 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Quercus phellos Willow oak 8' C 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 200 -
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 8' C 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 200 -
Ulmus americana American elm 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Ulmus americana American elm 8' C 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 200 -
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood 8' R 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 830 -
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood 8' C 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 200 -
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 8' R 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 830 -
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 8' C 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 200 -
Cephalanthus
occidentalis Buttonbush 8' R 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 830 -
Cephalanthus
occidentalis Buttonbush 8' C 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 200 -
Subtotal 10,300 -
Zone 3 - Wetland Area Acres 2.0
Species Common Name Max
Spacing Unit
Type Size Stratum Indiv.
Spacing # of
Stems Total
lbs
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 140 -
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 140 -
Quercus phellos Willow oak 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 140 -
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry 8' R 2 - 3' Canopy 8' 140 -
Salix nigra Black willow 8' R 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 140 -
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood 8' R 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 140 -
Cephalanthus
occidentalis Buttonbush 8' R 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 140 -
Asimina triloba Paw paw 8' R 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 140 -
Ilex verticillata Winterberry 8' R 2 - 3' Subcanopy 8' 140 -
Itea virginica Virginia willow 8' R 2 -3' Subcanopy 8' 140 -
Subtotal 1,400 -
Total 21,500 - 18.0
Notes: Unit Type choices include live stake (L), tubling (T), bare root (R) and containerized (C).
Actual size units may vary depending upon availability.
Containerized units will include minimum 1-gallon sized pots.
Figures
-????? '? - =i I ?:?? _ ?.-i. 'I ?E 1 frt.= ,:+?. , •fl -
iI.
I` I
?' :• ?? `
':Y'.?;.'I .f _ .f `I?_ _1: 1'_' ??^° ''. ?I. 1; ?ll I, ,(j• _ ?? i - --- i = II = _ ??)?? .`Z ':+',J is
41 z
. ??1 '."?I+?:..:' il? 'I; lr`' - -- rM ESL • ti-?.,,?? --r ' .:I ? I ] ?3 -
r; I,; II 'r .5 r
jv"
\L:i%: - .. N. + '. .l1 ••.l n.?..:- _ it - II
79
o I• . -} 'i•'`' 'I? l: 1, .I ,
rte :'fir . '16F5 \. .L . _M,.-_,.'-,.,1. •: ?' oR':. -a.
-1 cv- ": _ .` - ?. __. ?, /.-I. ? ? ? ••`I • Q' .626 + Z ? ?f•/i?,
I' {? Chi ??yc'',•`-- .(?.G ':?\? .r;.-i`>;•''?i ' -? '•L ?'? ? .? .I_ -_.____ •.? ` `?_ _, \J:
Charles Williams Stream-
IC#
"'v - ?•-- ?I';!i1 + a Wetland and Buffer Site '
;.s
. - .'.;=:•,?' I,
p
- _ ?:?\•- I ' -..:? - ,? , - ? ?? 11 .z ??...:r? - it ? as , `?-?
Y Creek Ch G2 n'
L./ ?:`• - ' -:':'1? 'l ?`? - - ? - ii':' `' - - _ - ? °: -?- lei; ; .. asBS . ?9 y.. :`
:Z ?•?'=!`?p _?--. Ili
E
CHATHAM
- _ -- ?? -fir-?: ?F_ .-?..•
PI.
- I l
y
631
Feet
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP C.aI Cal
128 Raleigh Street °g'
Project Site Vicinity Map
Holly Spri ngs, NC 27540 n ineering
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103
?
t
?
Clll
OS
Raleigh, NC 27604
March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
a
Legend rk
Study Area Streams
- - Y? a
Sandy Creek Watershed Highways
4 :a
UT of Sandy Creek Watershed Roads ,{ 4,
ti-O
x ; J . 5 S ?+- YY F T ° 2 I(• 1 J%: L "4? .a?::F '? t k 1?S
? # ?,? s• 't" 6 ?, ?? -? ., ~?'?, q{ a !? t??'', '?L.?. ? - i c i ? ??.,, is ixT ? ??:r? SJ F" R?qe t?, f ,.
All T?
-is
c c a I Ds j Z :' 4 ?s .v? a '.?s ;w •xL? nd
RIF
?? ? r Jl ?• ,. I ? x'13: , fi^ ?'? 5,? w' „!
tvV
?:.?.r."• =yam ?; ..? .? '•.??•?.?w1
"? `.. _• ?,r?r,?,? ?• '1 f ? 1 s jib ` ;v'^s.• ? ?.-
:?i `l i..r••f `1 j 421~
22 a
?.?.-?•-•? % t f t' + i• ?.. _ Liberty
%
? y,? a r ? ? - ` X12 ^• .,.C'? ? ?•?` .1
;49
1 J, K
10
BoodoM •" f r 11 1 ... Cree a,
•
•?? "? .,yam •? t '•\• ._} •'? '•.} ?...,?...:..?„ 3? I???.:ik ,f .
Amod
F?
WIF
F s Feet
4'? ?.• .???rr L I'k.; 4,000 21000 0 4,000
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP
128 Raleigh Street c0109cal Project Site Watershed Map
Holly Spri rigs, NC 27540 n ineering
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 2
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 ?' ?[)Sti5CiU
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
Ey-... 1ST.:..
Le end
Study Area
ALI ? ? ?a
s, s
lit,
Streams t J I.
+t _ ;
rJ'. 31ta x4
4 ?" ?yt °?°vy. t' ? '?, ? ?„y?`'.?''r ;?:.s,rS ?t a"j`i '4..""+??.t.' j ?p ?'?•-? '4?
V}
.' I.pt dt } 4 W
y7?G +nf r' r •>tii ?S?'i?:?? `u`' 1 i ,?1..
IN.
-411
rx . ?- ?eM?x{fir""1 r ?;Y?Ag4S ."v wy, Sa
u ` k ?t
Mill? 7?1
Wetland Area A
. !!^ q._ ,
un M,
,4-
fie' ar=• 4' 'YTM
lat-
%
At.
l?M1,i6
y-°? e x
Wetland Area B '
UPT
J
• mod" "
47
mz^ S;
s ±4 s tr kt SS k ?" „ S a k*
r i x s S:. • a u, :sue , fA
' ter,. yt? .' ? ', ? }j +4 ?r ,r >? ? ?'!?` ^?'•l',? M1 ` ?'P?,, . - "? ? ? y ?,?a y ti a a T
b
Northeast Randrolph?
h -?? Qy r Middle School ?x
M i; ?}'t"f a4 as"7° 'fit ..g1
V f ? f x
?" ?, ?+ { L' k # t a t ?r Feet
+?r'rc a^ ', z.. `-7;-, f *>•' ''..,.?'s ,.: ` 300 150 0 300 ,
:. v ?'€ i r-.e• =-se Tr' "r:eA =`
wl?
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP
128 Raleigh Street Ca ? Project Site Aerial Photograph
Holly Spri ngs, NC 275,40 n ineering
[phone] Charles Williams Site
Randolph County, NC FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP 3
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 ?' ?[)Sti5CiU
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
_ - ]} r f?-
? ' I. t'.- ', '.. 1.X 11 r `.-- ` - ^'^ ,',21[x. ..? _i/'; 1 `. r].. -?W .. X?
'>;..? 2ef , , . o::l• 'N." '4 raerr `" ", l - - _, fr.l ,'1 --.. : 1 ``i % y
!! "26
- / ??
x rC2 9' [ I[ =•"i.'.--'rIy" .', I : , ?", ' ; sFL i .
Charles Willliams Stream
,_; c _ : <
'? _
;:ljy. - u
',,:I. - `,-1 '`,-_ ? ;,.. i? :- - z `~`::_ j, j :'. -- 1. _ - , , -- S _ i
( i Wetland d and Buffer ite s
:'. Ill` ...F,I? ' -_`.-"?-?__ ,,.rx,?: - - - ,?r J . '. ,.U. I = - , ?; V',
'i _ @-- QL' - -
/ -_ ?._ 7 _ ? l
,l':?-;rl: ..,- _'? `'?- .,:tom.- - q-= `'; .. _:?--
;' \` ?^ 1 -
l •1..: ..r:
?1: .'i. F '.
s .:
.. _ il' ? .` l
I \ .. - i. E - .11 ?.. ' f i.::' ..
I f` ' _ - ,1
,, • .:: . .,N. •: 1 '•
f ,e? - -
•?'I - ?,i1': t.?.ti;: ='='f, r .(•,'.: _ - _=/.•:. 1..?y' y'`i''.tin3y CrewCh u2' _?.?'
?`_,,?.\"_ 111?•. IY
'. X-11 f'fff .• i'j •., .6' '. /.•
" ?y
. : L:I: ' : :.
?''. '..? '.: ,;•" i! `'? \', q•... / "' , '-1 - - _ !
I .;. _f?/ . - - . . I . .. ?...."? I . . . ? " - -_ . '?:_' - - -
V : : ; ?; : f'< _ - - _ ?..3``... -
` ? r`?.fi
r : ,1 _ -_ _ -
1 ', :?.
d '.,
j: .; \' s
„I . \
.,
5 Y
k^ -
_ _
1•'..:
?'
..I.
i-',?: _ -
1'
:l,
- 1/1
{.;.J .
- I,- '. I:
' .
. '
11ti !
y ,{?' .;. -.-.
. `.:' : `: y'!
Z 11.el. .?.: - _ ??' ` - 1 . `' l -
1` i _?.
J:'
'. .. i'.
r'_'
p I' „
3
r:'h
l - p. .; ,
1; . :.
- „
n.?
:'- I,...
- r ??
,..:- :1 ?, - lm
. , - - !
:„, ` _ ;ice..
-- ..: .
r . , `.'. . 4, -
?. V I: r'te' ?.
]:I.. / x
• . "% -
-fi
- ?
. of ?i:: -;•?
-
- .:.
:)
- i'
tF -
;:' -.'..
;? f
L. -= -
r:'
Sl'
- v' -
r - `,
.,...
?'
11 " %.
I
{-
?.: :!Y"-- " ( - ' 'i`.;
`j", _1 :\ _ - :
++1,
.' , i
. /.'. ;; .
"! -
'r -
- t. ..
i .9
N' `;
_ ,,
1r J.1.--W tfi!! is 4A.
?..
{{ - - - ,.
- - ..-.
_ . +. r
- _ ':.
f:: a J'!
.: ,e-
.,r?ti,,
r, / .
?. ti.`
". = "? _
7<.?? / - t
5
f 7 (. ?? .. ?` '' - ?:
J' r
-- - ? - ,?,. '' rt
_ ;v - ; 1 ..?:,; .
r ?.
_? _
! .
-,. ' ,. , .
4
?? „r
;,
?/ E..>=
- A
-" c • ;' - ? -1), j", i - / 11
i I. r ?. :I
?.` Y u.a
. . R .. Z•. ,
. ?, "? = '?• -_ .-- y:;:fir'. `..I.i-" 631
.. . R Z_ - I 1. V? . -
J .f J I.... s.
r; ,
>4:.- /.,:
,'i''II J: I - Q'.
N
?, _ L ; _; '.4,_ T
S
i? S , I ? 1? ti- :.
',' - 1
I,
%'
?'::
.r
- 7'::
?.., G.. ,
4'
J. ..l - S?? - -
y,
J'
tel: d. !, k.? - :;;` 'f
u.
- rte.;" - .[ :.:
':.,, ,,
`; { : - ., N•'
?_
>.;:: .
` : ?t?. ;?.. III ...' .: \\],^
7 ?1. - •:
1'• c k`= w?''' -
r ,. ? ,. - -
::: ; ?
i..''
- - '?..' - ?i ..'1,i
=A, ' ? .
1
_ `•F: ,
a t-
?' 1'if.',rz?'.
cl' -
h` .? ' ? 6i
':?J k ... :%i
, . ?::.. ,,,.
':_
;•
I.
:._ ., .
, " I 11
- -
? 1 _
- t -
.
'
_:
.. _ . .
f:'. _::f ,
,:.?
=L: -
,
- 7'?
?I ..A. : ;:. - !:. 1..-.
-.?r
<
-- ` k'_,\
` . .
:,-
I'
I'? ].:- -
?'.. l.'L. - - f::l 65
jI .
\'
_ P" ( _
`:! :'sue
rlil;_
.: _
-\
?` i - l
% - ; ;._ -
;? -
- I. f-`
>o,,
+ /' w'i 1. x ' Y,
_?. -
°
i f :;:-' ,
e..x l.' . ?"' hr,?,
- , T - , :^._-. - _.. .L ?, I I 1. ...... ..., , .1 - - 1. " if -_ I
, I ?
.:. . \
?.?i, 'll --?`. :?__.:_ :...
' , - =.rq'.. _c.-..: '•.:` ?c.? •.2• ,R.hil;'? C tr ep? i, J
v:1, '. '. ': •! ,fir 'I ,1,:.;..`.- \
:'.?:. :'1' o. .'J ?*:. .I , l . C; r f
:-:I:u'- -?., - .•:.;' -ill =? : !1 _ _:':1_ _
.1.. __ . -,,,.. ? N
_?F1':
,,
' '
tiJ. - C..
s - I -'
_. ::;
- 1 I ?i 11 - , , Z " , ',.-,. :.
:; _ -
,, _ .f lii .. C- - -
L
. ,; .=
I'll "
-_?• . 1.
-'
l
- 1 -\-_. 11
Fd.?' 1'. :. f '??`
' kv Ok C , : I :. %? .: ,
aiw_ ?. j ,.?.;..
- -
„> - =
-: -- ti' -
%;• -'
- r"
,I
;: •,r-`° - - . ,{: " .r- - ... - ¢ ,•[-- ] '? J /" -r., `Is '"61`'x"
.I' ! ' .Y.'4'? ' '?.. _1 °; An .IJ: 6 ? - .: - --- . T ... ?a?,'. Z ,sue"' I{,:._ _ 1 : - /?-
_ ;Gr.,ossin' 'Lat W-2495, Mul"ber -Acadefn=Road '` , ?1 / . + z' - %?
- i:.- 'r q
% s t' S - _.,
Feet
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP c-o
128 Raleigh Street Cal NCDWQ Fish Community and
Holly Spri ngs, NC 27540 ineering Benthie Station
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 4
2728 Capital Boulevard r_?l EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 1'••O??5tcill
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
Legend
Study Area
•L
Soi Is
ApB Appling sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes MaC Mecklenburg loam, 8 to 15% slopes 1'.
ApC Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10% slopes Me B2 Mecklenburg clay loam, 2 to 8% slopes, moderately eroded .rr ...
BaB Badin-Tarrus complex, 2 to 8% slopes Me C2 Mecklenburg clay loam, 8 to 15% slopes, moderately eroded -
BaC Badin-Tarrus complex, 8 to 15% slopes PaC Pacolet fine sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes "
BtB2 Badin-Tarrus complex, 2 to 8% slopes, moderately eroded PaD Pacolet fine sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes r
BtC2 Badin-Tarrus complex, 8 to 15% slopes, moderately eroded RnC Rion loamy sand, 8 to 15% slopes C
CcB Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 8% slopes RnD Rion loamy sand, 15 to 25% slopes
CcC Cecil sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes RvA Riverview sandy loam, 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8% slopes, moderately eroded VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8% slopes
ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded VaC Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes
CmA Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded W Water
CnC2 Coronaca clay loam, 8 to 15% slopes, moderately eroded WpE Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex, 8 to 15% slopes
DoB Dogue sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes, occasionally flooded WtB Wynott-Enon complex, 2 to 8% slopes
HeB Helena sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes WtC Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to 15% slopes `? -
HeC Helena sandy loam, 6 to 10% slopes WzB Wynott-Wilkes-Poindexter complex, 2 to 8% slopes w ,
¦ .
-WR
4AL
jlw
mot
??n'zx .f r T YtY?+. -0 },',y', v i...p \' _.?.+e+l+!'• x? 3• ;• am"(a?.??-? y { ,q1 L r,
rx h
f .y ?? 1 T ^ ? ? y5?y ?i?' ..4. M1,Y •. ?' tw k? ? Y f. ¢ }¦ ?? 5e l
t # f S . ::4{'1 JC'* r '{ A' - a. 1° 4 t }, r 1, ? Y ,
44
s i s N ,?w , m sky ayk.a. a
w ?ii?3 a. Cc _ ¦'? Boodom creek- l?Tl?
49-
.k,'?, 6'°-, ? -tt? ?G,.r, 'i?X ?3`. + ly. ?•.. ra?•? ? a n. ??,.+ s+f.- ?.
op Ak.
t'T #?'? 4? Y t RF 'i. , -+di .fag c st .4 .
a [ e ?, alc; ...
Ilk e
IT.
R 1,•+?' i '. 9? fry,/ 1 .
OEM VM
F ?j " Tr7 _
'`'
t
3R$j l , rx ? ; . !
F? ? { d: t
VINk ygF
4?'Atv
d.
4 ? ";4 d ?, ? to . ' ?•Y.c,
© .. y
"IF
0.2
?,y ? CSfl
ME em 'be
g Feet
SC _ 1,000 500 0 1,000
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP 'i:;--'COIC?Cai Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Holly Spri ngs, NC 27540 ineering
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 5
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 1' ?[)Sti5Cill
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
Legend M . r
Study Areas ?+ r
a Wetlands tr ` tr;`tai E4
Streams cn x L's W
ki,
t , S < Si
11 3
sY:. Tf-
• Wetland Area A
',?ti }?. ?? :114. ? - ?'' ?1A, ? a?•t
t
^?'..
I it rlyl ,' Ge k pIV
%
r '4?"
sn ,•. Wetland Area B F r ;? .. I
r .w,
w,
rr?
?? ?. s , ?.?+?" !'ter +?t,.>s-' ?? ; r y ?? t a?., ?^- ? ??1?.
?Vq
'? r
1 r'
76
6 SA Y aV. to .i. `5
y.
V? Its,. s Northeasf kandrolph*
-x h ? r Middle School
All
1R?;? r l'k i ti" f+fii °' ', n .: ?.,. is r •{? ? ?,"#., ?9Y F Feet
a ` N4v i}. ct 300 150 0 300
?v...
NFa-
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP pp Project Site Hydrological Features and
128 Raleigh Street cc)L?Cai
Holly Spri ngs,NC27540 ineerin Wetland Delineation Map
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 6
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 I "Cos • to I I
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
,
Legend
Study Area
Vegetative Communities
Agricultural/Pasturen?
Riparian Area
I "OV% i TOT
{ `f P
`? 1 A }{r ]F if??3 1
yZ 4'
I Ai
:" 4 ,
? 'P free ? ? } 'Pox r-. ?1 I V
- 71,
iE E' 1y? ? : r
\t. Z
a y
+a". a ?? p •?t
$tF
1 ?tz e
r r w
l!l_
-'
r '
R
. J1,
s
'`l al .k e
_?1 7
Ok. 11,
r yr?? ?r gg
V. N, Air 'W , t
Feet
300 150 0 300
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP
128 Raleigh Street coicIP1Cai Project Site Vegetative Communities Map
Holly Spri ngs,NC27540 trngineering
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 7
2728 Capital Boulevard r' EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 Lo to I I
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
?i [ y i c? t1 Fuquay Varina
ti. mar ?!y
? aryl
Apex Cary=Caryry
I? ?r =r 1
f o } 1 /'
Gamer } 7 r
Cary Gamer . _ ?? `? •?}i 1 r • /?' -a; ?'
Holly Springs p ..` ?,} • / ' _ I` Jj.
Terrible Creek
ti,
Reference Reach Site
WAKE
Fuquay-Varina
r.. _ -f? r-v yy c
1 HARNETT JOHNSTON • -, '? `f .) - / o ,'
1 Angy r Ly ?`II w ` - J ' ,
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP COIO
128 Raleigh Street 9 Stream Reference Site Vicinity Map
Holly Spri ngs, NC 27540 n ineering
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 8a
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
iI.
I` I
?' :• ?? `
'Y''?I .f _ .f ?i?_ _:: 1'_' ??^° '??I. 1;ll I, ,(?• _ i - --- i = 'I = _ ?7??T r'J
41 z
.??I '."?I+?:..:' il? 'I; lr`' - -- rM ESL • ti-?.,,?? --r ' .:I ? I ] ?3 -
r; I,{ II 'r .5 r
jv"
'?•,?:i%: - .. N. + '. r.: ••.l n.; _ r - II
-"r ,?`"-.. ?. ?? - - .c --? mil '.,\ ?'? / I: ?? -.i 'C,... ,?,?' •y_-' :°'?-, -`?' ? •' j? ??•;? 1
79
o I• . '/ ,`' III 1: ?. .I ' ,
-1 cv- ": _ .` - ?. __. ?, /.-I. ? ? ••`I • Q' .626 + Z ? ?f•/i?,
I' {? Chi ??yc'',•`-- .(?.G ':?\? .r;.-i`?•''?i ' -- '•L ?'? ? .? .I_ -_.____ •.? ` `?_ _, \J:
Charles Williams Stream-
cam. - i? l,? • 1' __ _I -??! ?] ; -b'.: 1 <.i 'i II ," ' .. ;,?.._" I ;
"'v - ?•-- ?I';!?1 ++ a Wetland and Buffer Site _';.s. - .'.;=:•,:?' I,
rp ?
''.f ti,' - ';1 :. ., -"`\\\ •? ?^:,. L? ''('"-i-Sand _ - ??. T45A. ?'
?I Y Creek Ch
I•I? •.:' . - ... < .!'???.. -.- ? ;.? '! ? - - Ili
61
,?_
_ , Wetland Reference Site _
i _ _J. - •III __ ? _
66
ri Zf
JILFORD
Charles Williams Stream
Wetland and Buffer Site
RANDOLPH
klinville
ALAMANC
`.r ...?... - -
- I l
? I -
7 -
Liberty. ;; f• . - -
I A??
_ i
Z-
Staley
CHATHAI ._
49
i11^. '' -__ '7631 ?''`?"J• ?. ii ., ??; ,/;?.'
'.' I' `r :•, '+' L I, y i,ir' Feet
2000 ,1,000 0 2,000

Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP col °gCal
128 Raleigh Street Wetland Reference Site Vicinity Map
Holly Spri ngs, NC 27540 n ineering
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 8b
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 OS??tClll
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
Legend
Terrible Creek Watershed
0 Stream Reference Reach r= -?
', s { Q;y
`-? ?: -
?J i. ' IF??"4? `may
??- ?`-
hL 11
-. 418 .
tl xtr, r_

? f.

?+? ''?. ? .E t.? 'C` '. w ?r pt}j .?'?? I ? I ?,+• ?r ?.? ? II ? 4?•r- r ? rr ?? • + ?ti,_
0 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 - l? y k? fr' 1 y J }`•.
9A ` flyl
Feet
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP co, to C?1
128 Raleigh Street Stream Reference Site Watershed Map
Holly Spri ngs, NC 27540 n ineerin
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 9a
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 (]S??7L'111
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
OLi
4. er
62
r
L
r.R S..r{, it r ..?? Ai siaxr.'dA v;.? r,• fir' ; i4 ?? •.
...,.•• t- : • ••?,,..e? +., r { 't, ,ti . is . a :.
A
k-. Of
*41 N
i ?.
21 t
22
I 1. ? 1. j ! ? ?...?..? ?•, ?Y•'+ ~?`•
?• j 't ` r ?'?. .; ?.. , % Liberty
?y ? fJ ,•,• r' r' J
• m_
gal _ I o m creek' `., r•....
ti
r:
'low
AN,
i
yes
FOn
ZS-
.Y
W ?,¦1 :r x
t 2
Feet
?.. ?: 4,000 2,000 0 4,000 ;
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP ?cola?ical
128 Raleigh Street Wetland Reference Site Watershed Map
Holly Spri ngs, NC 27540 fnee -Ing
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 9b
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 ,('{)5Y'StCiU
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
ooliii7 „,?, N , C
Legend,
Study Area a
_....... Streams
r r
NoA
sOiIS
AgB2 - Appling gravelly sandy loam, 2-6% slopes, moderately eroded AgC - Appling gravelly sandy loam, 6-10% slopes "°B''
AgC2 - Appling gravelly sandy loam, 6-10% slopes, moderately eroded o6 ` `
ApB2 - Appling sandy loam, 2-6% slopes, moderately eroded
ApC - Appling sandy loam, 6-10% slopesk-
ApC2 - Appling sandy loam, 6-10% slopes, moderately eroded"
ApD - Appling sandy loam, 10-15% slopes
CeD - Cecil sandy loam, 10-15% slopes, 3Aa;
GeB - Georgeville silt loam, 2-6% slopes& ,
GeC2 - Georgeville silt loam, 6-10% slopes, moderately eroded`
LyA- Lynchburg sandy loam, 0-2% slopes cee LyA
MeA - Mantachie sandy loam, 0-2% slopes, rarely flooded
NaE - Nanford silt loam, 15-25% slopes,."
NoA - Norfolk loamy sand, 0-2% slopes
PcE3 NoB - Norfolk loamy sand, 2-6% a'±
slopes;
NoC - Norfolk loamy sand, 6-10% slopes,„
PcE3 - Pacolet clay loam, 1°0-20% slopes, severely eroded Gecz eA B
RoA - Roanoke loam, 0-2% slopes, occasionally flooded agcz?
W - Water .. = GeB a
(VVaB
WaB - Wa ram loam sand, 2-6% slopes
WaC - Wagram loamy sand, 6-10% slopes. € MeA
WgA- Wagram-Troup sands, 0-4% slopes M-;?
?.
WoA - Wehadkee and Bibb soils, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded _wac Z;Q w
w ^ a AgC RoA
+Yi waC GeB2
N
&''"ll3t?? ??a s??"wA aef e•y aE'S'i.,4-s?
WgA 3 r ? ( "JW t ?1K aim d
441-
...a ¢ ? + r NU Tip! w
V1Fa.' .
?C?
M
?,t°?t to•rr # 're?A rVNaE
a,.`},,.,
a. i?
. F Z 4: A B"' f as "F x r 7 `4• , T w'k`" cxt !a
>l 1
?dCi
r r n.; tip. ,g ti -'' >< k {, s1? z V?a.?, r k t. p NOB
A?T
Me 'Y^- Amp
Jly A £.T`y- ?
9 r db?`fi.'r F +yr ??R '?
?? . NFaB A ?a * a , yki s sad V1FaC? HfB2j t
Ail
a rp R ?'. ` :.s' QPCZ r. NoB t ?..?w s r ,,,5 F
nR ` f q R '. k? " r ?? t c s S?' 4 sa €5 WaB : MeA ? i fiu
?: r s a_??. z?: ik ?a ?r t r x k
,y 5
F ?3- yy?" 1• }. ,;? F",tiF f14 S ?..? 3.p?5 F: :.y5 d ..
t
V1FaQ I?'eV1?, , NOB ?[ ?C NFaB
WgA
NFaC a V1FaB v, ?b r a .. r a F + "w i;. FaB
"Vva
WgA
'e +.:; " 'F•"Sa' ?t x. y ?' 111Fa6;•,` .'p., y 4 ,?, 2k
{ @ i r y
it N"13 '
'0 125 250 500 750 1,000 i ` F ye ? * rm- '4t 15i
MeA _NFaB V 13
Wv F 4 S z NoB NoB NoB;; NFaB+
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP colaiCal Stream Reference Site
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Spri ngs, NC 27540 t6n ineerin NRCS Soil Survey Map
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 10a
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 (}yyt(ill
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
k..
Legend
Study Area a
Wetland Reference Site
r7ITI
Soi Is
ApB Appling sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes MaC Mecklenburg loam, 8 to 15% slopes s"
ApC Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10% slopes Me 132 Mecklenburg clay loam, 2 to 8% slopes, moderately eroded
BaB Badin-Tarrus complex, 2 to 8% slopes Me C2 Mecklenburg clay loam, 8 to 15% slopes, moderately eroded
BaC Badin-Tarrus complex, 8 to 15% slopes PaC Pacolet fine sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes
Bt132 Badin-Tarrus complex, 2 to 8% slopes, moderately eroded PaD Pacolet fine sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes '
BtC2 Badin-Tarrus complex, 8 to 15% slopes, moderately eroded RnC Rion loamy sand, 8 to 15% slopes
CcB Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 8% slopes RnD Rion loamy sand, 15 to 25% slopes eo
CcC Cecil sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes RvA Riverview sandy loam, 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded
Ce132 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8% slopes, moderately eroded VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8% slopes
ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded VaC Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes
CmA Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2% slopes, frequently flooded W Water
CnC2 Coronaca clay loam, 8 to 15% slopes, moderately eroded WpE Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex, 8 to 15% slopes LxfJ
DoB Dogue sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes, occasionally flooded WtB Wynott-Enon complex, 2 to 8% slopes
HeB Helena sandy loam, 2 to 6% slopes WC Wynott-Enon complex, 8 to 15% slopes
4.
HeC Helena sandy loam, 6 to 10% slopes WzB Wynott-Wilkes-Poindexter complex, 2 to 8% slopes
944??i K?, Yr ?'.17
44, k
All
f -
10
Blood Creek
I cG`D' ryF . ad}s ` us
r } .
',• a s>, . L::` qty
Pill I
r $t
.
?, .?.- T ? rig` ._ .. „ t'.Y S: ; Ok'?' ? • ? b t s !'!
r y ??F?S•H? F ?+? t ?` '? ?, ' for r ?t. ?? , _?+' ?' pc G? ?/}?1
i
• 3 . ? ?Atik# i'c I ,, .? f ^t a??,µ?, ? `? ? .r?l'i¦e N? k ?t.,
-
\/F1Tj ? 'I . ? f
. ¦ .. a Y .?• 5 rlf ? ! ?f .' ? ? ?,'?) J 5 V..?y? ar.r? ?_^. ?j` ? ?. ?1 s ':. -"?`._ "? $? yx
¢? -q f C ti yb 71,:t '? .y
,lk t? .A - --' _.,f :01.'+ L*L'Y '1 , ti5. -. xry_??let a _d..
Mj:
r't
l F,K - .!4 Feet
% -t - 1,000 500 0 1,000
r
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP C??C! Wetland Reference Site
128 Raleigh Street i NRCS Soil Survey Map
Holly Spri ngs, NC 27540 rt ineering
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 10b
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 ?' ?[)5???C1U
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
?.-
Legend
Study Area
Vegetative Communities 1117
.- Z
lip
" •• r
x e w
Bottomland Hardwood Forest r y
n
M
1 f Ni 'Rki
ZtAi
r f{ ^1{o-•??FK,. ` I 1 j-
y .. ?' ,,F
,
1' is y k A fay 00-
`
rt 'o.i r rC
two,
?t
b t S
? xis \N'.,d k e 4 ??_^ '? `? ?'•? ' ? 4? . ?? V
31
., z ? .? y,cam" w. ??+?..'?'S . ? ,?,.F,Yr #! r?.. ? gy..:
ttl 5Y'e, . A
} s ?.y ti
%
Z'N
" r
C' s n
44 M
- 0 50 100 200 ? 300 400
Feet
Am"
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP I I Stream Reference Site
128 Raleigh Street GOlogIcal
Holly Spri ngs,NC27540 ineering Vegetative Communities Map
[phone] Charles Williams Site
FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 11a
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 ?'' (}yyj(ill
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
Legend
Study Area
Vegetative Communities
r f
?f
Agricultural/Pasture
Riparian Area
lrulft.N
rZ,
T 1
44
r 'ant
i q`N1
?.' ?'. - .
i[Y l 7 y3C1 ?.
i
't,
%
?' ..
s
All
4.'IWF' i
? r ' f. F? `"?'? 5??`?y ? . Ott""' t
Y
Y X15
r x??•-.r s - .1.r ? -
V
gryryg
4 'k
` t .yam ??T' ? ?, ?•. .: }?? b ?... s.a. ' ??. ? ? ?+. s F•: ^ i,.' • * + ' Wetland Reference Site ; r +? t? x'•,
4_4 7w
%
4.1
2 Y 1, ?ri
t? ri3???? ¦ ^` r '`tom .. '.•
Feet
300 150 0 300
Prepared By: Ecological Engineering, LLP 4 Wetland Reference Site
128 Raleigh Street --C?1d1Cr#i
Holly Spri ngs,NC27540ii Vegetative Communities Map
[phone]
LF Charles Williams Site FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP Randolph County, NC 11b
2728 Capital Boulevard EEP Contract No. D08035S
Suite 1H 103 ? "LO to I I
Raleigh, NC 27604 March 9, 2009
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad)
Design Sheets
PROJECT
ENGINE
tl"?"RAC
UT TO SANDY CREEK 50 25 0 50 100
STREAM RESTORATION
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 556 EXISTING BRIDGE
v7
0
554 ly
41
559
S 41 41 ?d 41
A l ER T&
§ 'w S R A A? - ILA-,
a?
41 41 41 41 ?i 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
_ n -?--
e-55B
SEVERELY ERODED iH iH iH ?l A )I iH ?H ?d )I )I '. M iH ?l )
STREAM BANK
iH ?H ?H ?l )I )I )I )I i' ?I ?H )I )I H )I )I iH i' ?H
€ ERELY ERODED,
STREAM BANK ? 0 D U?7l W :4
sas U-)
ti
?....
--- .. ..._.. ,moo .?... _o_
P4
o, _
Q,
N
--- - -----------
?yl ''77
° E ISTING0 w
D BRIS 9 p a P.
a Ul
UT TO SAND REEK
44
EXISTING BEAVER DAM
9S r. F rl
FAILLE TREES ?a UUVVV
SEVERELY ERODED h EAVER DAM / c K rn
STREAM BANK CD
s o O
s? N r-I z
w O
CONSERVATION EASEMENT a o G
No
c:) a
/ SEVERELY ERODED
STREAM BANK
r-I
N
Cn
W14111111111111?111if Pill
555
u
?g
(r) N
.L 2
cc
O ?? 3
0
O
V
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
-UT-
UT TO SANDY CREEK 50 25 0 50 100
STREAM RESTORATION i
REMOVE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 6 EXISTING BRIDGE CONSTRUCT AT-GRADE
REPLACE WITH STREAM CROSSING
60-INCH IMMEDIATELY
CSP DOWNSTREAM
INSTALL
554 LOG VANE
`+ REwGRAQE AND RE-SLOPE \
V
559
rP AIA`EC a § 'w SME i AM ?A? ?d
41
I v
N ---?--
RE-GRADE AND "1' 41
SEVERELY ERODED
STREAM BANK
`t BA KF L?- - ?+
?Rr;, ? DE AN LOPE CH
MY ERODED 6 (-n
STREA,BANK
cno,
o
0 -
j ------------
D
557 C
-------------------- x
RE OVE
o E ISTING
' ?ti r c ! D BRIS
q
UT TO SAND REEKS M
REMOVE
EXISTING BEAVER DAM '
REMOVE es <.
FAILLE TREES
RE-GRADE AND RE-SLOPE
SEVERELY ERODED
STREAM BANK
BNKFULL BENCH
scs? \
INSTALL CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LOG
VANES
INSTALL LOG VANES
RE-GRADE AND RE-SLOPE WITH ROOTWADS
SEVERELY ERODED
INSTALL ROCK STREAM BANK
CROSS VANE
0+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
-UT-
PROJECT
ENGINE
:``2°QoE6C?5Sp? s
5 6
'Za g
v7
z
0
5
p;?xw
0
?l?wW
Ua
0? W
U w
W
o O
(V O
I? w O z
No
? O a
m
H?
xN
d?1"1
u
r ?g
L (r) N
cc
2
O ?? 31
0
O
V
EXISTING
AVER DAM
Fn
mN?
+
cn0
=or
m
Fn
'm
?x
c

INSTALL
WITH ROOTWADS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
tEGRADE AND RESLOPE
-IEUERELY ERODED
ITREAM BANK
EXISTING TRANSMISSION
RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROJECT
ENGINE
:``2°QoE6C?5Sp? s
5 6
'Za g
V7
z
0
5
W

?
p.,
x w
0
l?
r
wW
?aaZ
P?
U
a
z? W
o W

U
W
o O
(V O
? w Oz

O a

d?
N
Cn
20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00
-UT-
Tn
u
:? g
V) N
L 1U
r?
?w ? N C
D_
0
O
u
\\ 50 25 0 50 100
PROJECr
ENGINE ?
C
1 0 50 0 100 200 Planting Summary per Planting Tune Seeding Z Sununary for Temporary and Permanent Vegetation per Planting Zone
Species Common Name Max Unit Type Size Stratum div. #ofStems To?llbs P
1 ,;yr ?rF?Sg
ZONE 1
Zone 2-Riparian Area Acres 15.1 Agrostl
Species Common Name Max Unit Type Size Stratum ]nrliv. #ofSlems To?llbs
z
ZONE 3 Schizarhyriums pm?ium Herb Little bluest- 1(5%) 2060
5
W
Subtotal 20 L007°
2-Riparian -
ZONE Z
ZONE Z 6 0 on I.
F X
r IIJJ
ZONE 1 ?y
w?
au?i
Subtotal 300 100;'0 W
r?-IIOF-i
?? 2.0
V W
U
z
}ad
Species Common Name Max Unit Type Size Stratum ]nrliv. #ofSlems To?llbs dea Herb Fox Mixto6e
UT TO SnbrovcnBe Rudbec7a'a hti7a Herb Black-eyed sumn 2(500/o) approx.
r e W
rW1 W
U
(Permanent 3eertin 360 18.0
ZONE 3 -
l
Subtotal 1,400 -
Total 21,500 - 18 ZONE
(ON
C14 Z
? w z
L
ao
/ No
/ ZONE Z
ZONE 2 Gyp b
5
y? In
ZONE 3 ?s /
1 i ? ?0 rTW,
P S ?tJ4' ? l?'1 N
x
/
ZONE 1
Ul
ZONE 2 QHCC
/
AT]
0
1001
N
_ .
? cc
N R
? 31
0
O
ZONE Z ZONE 2 O s C
U
Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501

Zone l - Streamside Area Acres 0.9

Salix nigra Bleckwillow 2' L 2-3' Subcanopy 4' 3,000 -
Comasamomum Silky dogwood 2' L 2-3' Shrub 4' 3,000 -
Inusserrulota Tag elder 10' T N/A Shrub 20' 800 -
Smnbacuccm dens Elderberry 2' L 2-3' Shrub 4' 3,000 -
Subhalal 9,800 -

Betalanigra River birch 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Betalanigra River birch 8' C 2-3' Canopy 8' 700
Celfis laevigata Sugarberry 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Celiislaevigata Sugarberry 8' C 2-3' Canopy 8' 700 -
FY?nusFennry:vanica Green ash 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 830 -
FY?nusFennry:vanica Green ash 8' C 2-3' Canopy 8' 700 -
r7uemuvmichonn'i Swamp chestrot 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 830 -
r7uemuvmichonn'i Swamp chestnut 8' C 2-3' Canopy 8' 700
Quemusphellos Willow oak 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Quemusphellos Willow oak 8' C 2-3' Canopy 8' 700 -
Platonusocaden(olis Sycamore 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Platonusocademolis Sycamore 8' C 2-3' Canopy 8' 700 -
Uknusamericana Amaicen elm 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 830 -
Uknusamericana Amaicen Out 8' C 2-3' Canopy 8' 700 -
Corp'nuscoroliniona Ironwood 8' R 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 830 -
Corp'nuscoroliniona Ironwood 8' C 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 700 -
Lindembenzoin Spicebush 8' R 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 830 -
Lindembenzoin Spicebush 8' C 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 700 -
Cvpldonthuv Buttonbush 8' R 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 830 -
Cvpldonthuv Suttonbush 8' C 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 7A0 -
Subfnlal 10
Zone 3- Weiland Area Ames 2

Quemuv michonn'i Swamp chestrot 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 140 -
FY?nusFennry:vanica Green ash 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 140 -
Quemusphellos Willow oak 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 140 -
Celiislaevigata Sugarberry 8' R 2-3' Canopy 8' 140 -
Salixnigra Bleckwillow 8' R 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 140 -
Corp'nuscoroliniona Ironwood 8' R 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 140 -
Cvpldonthuv Suttonbush 8' R 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 140 -
minatriloba paw pew 8' R 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 140
BexverticilLrta WiNaberty 8' R 2-3' Subcanopy 8' 140 -
Iteavirgnica Virginiawillow 8' R 23' Subcanopy 8' 140 -

Charles Williams Site - SCO Project Number 070712501
Seeale cereale 016s/ac Single 5 6
Anr60 on IomemLas Herb Bush 6lnestem 15% approx. 0
Ch
Herb Indian ras 5%
Zone
rosdr en
Anr omemLas Herb Bush 6lnestem 15 5% approx
Sorgh
Unwla b7t
Zone 3 - Welland Area Permanent 8 cemn Acres
,Ms, nito 3traW Herb m Virg inia wild e 1025°°
Cmez vul im
Iris versicolor Herb Blue flag 2(5
Verbena ha<'Ia<e Herb Blue vavein 2(5
Total
U

Temporary Seeding Throughout Disturbed Areas Acres n/a
Yearroved Herb Grain rye 13
M -8e temba mdcum -_ Herb Brown to millet 40 160aa species to
M -8e tember Scoria da6'ca Herb German millet 25160ec be
3 terrb er-March IMe a lomemta Herb Orchard 15160ec aPPlied

Zone1-8treamsideArea PamanerdSeedin Ames 0.9
3 ewes Name Stratum Commmr Name Total lhs
&l mru vir 'nsru Herb Vir inia wild e 3 15%
Parurum vir atom Herb Switchar asa 3 15%
sperennarw Herb Antunm ben[grass 2 (10.0
Bidens mielosa Herb Beggar ticks 2(10%) Mixtobe
cm P?st?,ceotma Herb coreopaia zlla?? appueaat
Pmricum clarelesfvum Herb Dcerton e 2 10% rate of

DesmoaYum cmrodense Herb Showy tick trefoil 1(5%) acre
mnvECrisiafarcicu
lata Herb Pa midge pea 1(5°%)
Sor hasbum nutorrs 1
Unw7a b7ti lia Herb River oats 1 5%

Area Permanent S eedin Acres 15.1
3 ewes Name Stratum Common Name Total lhs
&l mru vir 'nitro Herb Vir inia wild e 45 IS°°
Parurum vir atom Herb Switchar asa 45 IS°°
er nanr Herb Auto- ben vas 30 10%
Bidens mielosa Herb Beggar ticks 30 (10? Mixtobe
Cmeopsis lonceolola Herb Coreopsis 30(10? applied at
Pmricum clarelesfvum Herb Dcerton e 3010°° rate of

Schizarh rium sca m?ium Herb Little 6luestem 155% 20 6 0
DesmoaYum cmrodense Herb Showy ticktr efoil 15(5%) acre
Chmn?rrisiafarciculata Herb Pamidgepea 15(5%)
asbum not any Herb Indian grass 15 (5%)
i lia Herb River oats 155%

Name Common Name Total lhs
r r
rosdr erennarw Herb Antunm ben rass 10 25%
i sed e 8 20%
%) applied at
DesmoaYum cmrodense Herb Showy tick trefoil 2(5%) rate of

%) 20 6 0
Bobetiacmdinatir Herb Cardinal flower 2(5%) acre
Juncos e,(/iuvs Herb Soft rash 1(2.5%)
Polygonumperuuylvmncum Herb Pennsylvania emanweed 1 (2.5%)
3nhtalal 40 L0070
U-) Z
Appendix 1
Project Site Photographs
Project Site Photographs - January 2008

Facing west across the Unnamed Tributary
approximately 500 linear feet upstream of the
confluence with Sandy Creek. . 16

26
S
F ,
Facing upstream (north) along the Unnamed
Tributary approximately 500 linear feet upstream
of the confluence with Sandy Creek.

Facing downstream (south) along the Unnamed
Tributary approximately 300 linear feet
downstream (south) from the northern property
boundary.
Appendix I Project Site Photographs Page I
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County
Ecological Engineering, LLP
Facing upstream (north) along the Unnamed
Tributary approximately 100 linear feet
downstream (south) from the northern property
boundary.
Facing downstream (south) along the Unnamed
Tributary approximately 100 feet downstream
(south) from the northern property boundary.

IL, iZ-
`' -
Facing downstream (south) from the northern
property boundary at the eastern floodplain area
_ associated with the Unnamed Tributary.
Appendix I Project Site Photographs Page 2
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County
Ecological Engineering, LLP

r y, r ?
Facing southwest across the large floodplain area
of Sandy Creek. Sandy Creek flows from east to
west (left to right across picture) just inside the
existing tree line.
Facing west along the floodplain area of Sandy
Creek. Sandy Creek is situated to the left of the
photograph. Note the existing terrace feature
signifying a historic active floodplain.
Facing upstream (west) along Sandy Creek. This
photograph is taken approximately 1,500 linear
feet downstream of the SR 2442 bridge.
Appendix I Project Site Photographs Page 3
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County
Ecological Engineering, LLP
Facing west along the Sandy Creek floodplain
area. The carsonite post in the middle of the
photograph depicts the conservation easement
boundary.
c
'-? ' '
di

Facing west towards the SR 2442 bridge over
Sandy Creek. The easement area and stream
channel are along the right edge of the photograph.
Facing west at the bridge over Sandy Creek. The
easement intersects SR 2442 approximately 100
feet north of the structure.
Appendix I Project Site Photographs Page 4
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County
Ecological Engineering, LLP
Appendix 2
Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: May 6° 2008
Evaluator: Lane Sauls
Total Points: 411.5
If -j y++r pere•tlar411 it ?t fl
Project: Charles Williams Site
Site: tTI Sandy Creck
Couniy: Randolph
Latitude: 35.8255569 °N
Longitude: 79.6504008 "W
Other. Grays Chapel. NC
e.g. aearrl Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 33 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 °. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 l 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
Cis Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9'. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10.1leadcut.s 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0,5 1 1.5
13. SLcond or greater order channel on existtng
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No= 0
Yes = 3
S1r1il11-n1aUe (11 MI US arC MIt RIM..: SL'e (IISCUSS10115 111 111;1I1uaI-
B Hydrology (Subtotal = 9 J Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flnwldischarge 0 l 2 3
15. Water in channel and = 48 hrs. since rain. or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leafli[ter 1.5 l 0.5 0 -
17, Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 l 1.5
19, Hydric soils (redoxitnorphic leatures) resent'? No = 0 Yes 1.5
C. Biology [Subtotal = 6.5 }
2U . Fibrous rafts in channel
21 Rooted plants in channel
22, Crayfish
23, Bivalves
24. Fish _
25. Amphibians
26, Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
27. Filamentous algae, periphyton
28, Iron Oxidi-rinu bacteriafunttus
29 Wetland plants in streambed
".[irons 20 and 21 locus on the presence ol'upland Plant s° ltcnl
Notes: (Use track side of this li1r111 lilr add it ionaI nnl+ s.l
Absent Weak Moderate Strong
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 1 2 3
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 1 2 3
0 0.5 i 1.5
FAC=0.5; FAC1>4-11.75: 013L=1.5; SAV=2.0:
Other--0
lscs on the presence e11'ayuatic or %aetlaii el jilai1ts.
Sketch:
Lcit'bm C4
Wr

bra f "f Ls?9
& 'R
6;y?IC y cotes r W'W
f;w tA-1 dF If LAITIwr
eiv.sw, ("OWD" s+of G) .
eat
Appendix 3
Project Site BEHI Worksheet
Stream: UT Sandy Creek Reach: CW Portion Date: 6/25/2008 Crew: GLS X-Section:
Bank
Erodibility Variable Index Erosion
Potential
Bank Height/ Bankfull Height
Bank Bankfull
Height (ft) Height (ft) A/B
1.0 Very Low
A B
2.0 2.0 1.0
Root Denth/Bank Height
Root
Depth (ft) C/A
C
0.5 0.3
Weighted Root I)eneihr
Root
Density D*(C/A)
(%) D
40 10.0
BankAngle
Bank
Angle
(degrees)
60
Surface Protection
Surface
Protection
50
Materials:
10
Stratification:
0
TOTAL SCORE:
30.0 High
Bank Erosion Hazard Index
Bank Erosion Potential
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
Bank Height/ Value 1.0-1.1 1.11-1.19 1.2-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.8 >2.8
-11 Bankfull Height Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
Root Depth/ Value 1.0-0.9 0.89-0.5 0.49-0.3 0.29-0.15 0.14-0.05 <0.05
Bank Height Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
Weighted Value 100- 80 79 - 55 54 - 30 29 - 15 14- 5.0 <5.0
Root Density Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
E Bank Value 0-20 21 - 60 61- 80 81 - 90 91-119 >119
W Angle Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
Surface Value 100- 80 79 - 55 54 - 30 29 - 15 14 - 10 QO
Protection Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
Bank Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending on percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt/Clay (+0: no adjustment)
Stratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
IbtalScore
Very Low Moderate High Very Extreme
Low High
5-9.5 10-19.5 20-29.5 30-39.5 40-45 46-50
NEAR BANK STRESS AND BANK EROSION PREDICTION
Total Cross Section
Bankfull Mean
Depth (ft) Slope Density of
Water (lblft3) Shear Stress
(lbslft2)
1.6 0.001 62.4 0.10
dbkf S 7 Z
Near Bank Third
Bankfull Max
Depth (ft) Slope Density of
Water (lblft3) Shear Stress
(lbs/112)
2.6 0.001 62.4 0.16
dmaxnb S 7 Tab
Near Bank Stress = Near Bank Shear Stress (inb) 1.63
Total Shear Stress (i)
Near Bank Stress Range: 0.5-1.0 I 1.01 -1.50 I 1.51 -2.0 2.01 -2.5 I 2.51-3.0 13.0
Near Bank Stress Rating: Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
Near Bank Stress Rating BEHI Rating
Moderate High
Bank Erosion Prediction 0.7 Curve used: Yellowstone
(ft/yr) Colorado
Other
Appendix 4
Reference Site Photographs
Reference Site Photographs
Terrible Creek Reference Stream Photographs - Taken February 2008
7 d j`Sd
Y
'
S,
?? •af c y? 1Yy a ! ? ?, f
t.SgE

'4V.7

Facing downstream along the reference portion of
Terrible Creek.
b Facing downstream along the reference portion of
Terrible Creek.
t v?.
'YFO f i +'i
J
F I{I
Facing upstream along a riffle associated with the
reference portion of Terrible Creek.
Appendix 4Reference Site Photographs Page I
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County
Ecological Engineering, LLP
Sandy Creek Reference Wetland and Buffer Photographs - Taken September 2008
r?
[; F
l
s l
Facing southwest at the reference wetland area
along the southern side of Sandy Creek, adjacent
to the project site.
Facing west at the wetland reference area along
the southern side of Sandy Creek, adjacent to the
project site.
a
Facing south at the Sandy Creek floodplain and
reference wetland area from the project site.

Appendix 4Reference Site Photographs Page 2
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County
Ecological Engineering, LLP
Facing east along the buffer area separating Sandy
Creek and the reference wetland area.
S x• "Y?.L??
One of the small depressional areas along the
southern floodplain of Sandy Creek.
Appendix 4Reference Site Photographs Page 3
Charles Williams Site, Randolph County
Ecological Engineering, LLP
Appendix 5
Stream Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: February 20, 2009 Project: Charles Williams Site Latitude: 35.6069627 °N
Evaluator: Lane Sauls Site: Reference - Terrible Creek Longitude: 78.7756643 °W
Total Points: 51.0 Other: Fuquay Varina, NC
Stream is at least intermittent County: Wake e.g. Quad Name:
If>19 or perennial if>30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 33_____) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal = 9 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season
0
1
2
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 9 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; erih ton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun s 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
'.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
Appendix 6
Reference Site BEHI Worksheet
Stream: Terrible Creek Reach: Upstream of SR 1301 Date: 2/27/2009 Crew: GLS X-Section:
Bank
Erodibility Variable Index Erosion
Potential
Bank Height/ Bankfull Height
Bank Bankfull
Height (ft) Height (ft) A/B
1.0 Very Low
A B
2.0 2.0 1.0
Root Denth/Bank Height
Root
Depth (ft) C/A
C
1.5 0.8
Weighted Root I)eneihr
Root
Density D*(C/A)
(%) D
70 52.5
BankAngle
Bank
Angle
(degrees)
60
Surface Protection
Surface
Protection
60
2.1 Low
4.1 Moderate
3.9 Low
3.7 Low
Materials:
5
Stratification:
0
TOTAL SCORE:
19.8 Moderate
Bank Erosion Hazard Index
Bank Erosion Potential
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
Bank Height/ Value 1.0-1.1 1.11-1.19 1.2-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.8 >2.8
-11 Bankfull Height Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
Root Depth/ Value 1.0-0.9 0.89-0.5 0.49-0.3 0.29-0.15 0.14-0.05 <0.05
Bank Height Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
Weighted Value 100- 80 79 - 55 54 - 30 29 - 15 14- 5.0 <5.0
Root Density Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
E Bank Value 0-20 21 - 60 61- 80 81 - 90 91-119 >119
W Angle Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
Surface Value 100- 80 79 - 55 54 - 30 29 - 15 14 - 10 QO
Protection Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
Bank Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending on percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt/Clay (+0: no adjustment)
Stratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
IbtalScore
Very Low Moderate High Very Extreme
Low High
5-9.5 10-19.5 20-29.5 30-39.5 40-45 46-50
NEAR BANK STRESS AND BANK EROSION PREDICTION
Total Cross Section
Bankfull Mean
Depth (ft) Slope Density of
Water (lblft3) Shear Stress
(lbslft2)
0.8 0.013 62.4 0.65
dbkf S 'l Z
Near Bank Third
Bankfull Max
Depth (ft) Slope Density of
Water (lblft3) Shear Stress
(lbs/112)
1.4 0.013 62.4 1.14
dmaxnb S 7 Tab
Near Bank Stress = Near Bank Shear Stress (inb) 1.75
Total Shear Stress (i)
Near Bank Stress Range: 0.5-1.0 I 1.01 -1.50 I 1.51 -2.0 2.01 -2.5 I 2.51-3.0 13.0
Near Bank Stress Rating: Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
Near Bank Stress Rating BEHI Rating
Moderate Moderate
Bank Erosion Prediction 0.3 Curve used: Yellowstone
(ft/yr) Colorado
Other
Appendix 7
Project Site USACE Routine On-Site Wetland Determination Data Forms
DATA FORM
ROUTINF. WETLAND DETF,RMINA,rION
(1987 C OE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
PrnjectlSiti: Charlcrs Williantf 3treatit and ff tWand .Sire Date;
Applicant/Owncr: _ Crckrgiralinginrrring/EEP C'uunly:
Invesligtlttlr(s): lxne,Sanls & Charlie Mttsser Slatc:
X11 Ntsnuid Circkinistancl-N cxltil In1 Iheule" Yes Ni- Co mnultily ID
Is ilic site signilicantly diuurhedl I Atypical 5itualion i" Y Cs Fransccl ID:
Is t11 ii :srkrl :1 flOte111ia1 PTnhILin Arc i' Y c; Va I'llll I
111 iWc•ck'd• C.CPhiiil 1111 re•vrr'.,c-I
5/1612008
Randol h
North Carolina
Wrlland -,I
YiAen ar Flo - II L . 1-12
VEGETATION
Dominant Phnll SPdxies Silent lnditamoi 041111 nanl Plam Spccid?, 51rrnlm hulicau3r
I Bae•apa.sp. herb OBI. It.
'. Ranraterelrrs.sp. herb FAA Ifl.
t ,hraeer.se itsms herb FAC11+ 11.
4. I'nlpgonrenr sr. herb VAC I 1 _l.
y I.entna sp. herb 10I11. 11
n 1J.
7. ] ?.
I. 16.
Percenl Ili'I7ominant SlxLwN That iwcOHI, FAM. 11r FA( (excluding FAC•I. lUfl%b
Remarks: The area a5,4ae•ifated with Iiefland t is Aept' in a 1•erv fah-state ofaatarad .succe'.vvio t dm' fn twextimg ft1'e.s'rock (t•ar110 influe'nce's. It is
co nsmderr d e.l"r,lring pasfarelattd.s and t1' hae•ated within the e!eistimg frandpkeim of the Ittt?tatmed frib etfarr to Sa n ift Creek. This werkrnd
area rs lying a a d marraPv and parahleli; the ca'isfing rttrnanred frihmlat.l' channel. It is c•(omaected with the Channel at its t1e714'm.5'rream end.
IIYI)ROLOGY
Record cd I):it:l I Ih•til'1'111d• 911 Rel:l iirksl
Sheath. lake. o: hide Gaucc
Acrial PllologrlPhs
01her
X No Ro:orciLd D:t%l Avaihihlc wel Lind Ilvd.Illlogy" Illdlcatl i?N:
Phnlnly Indicators:
x Inundated
x Sill uruIcd 1111.1pPC r I? lI I c11 c
x Water M;Irk4
x Dint 1-mcs
x Sctilimenlllcllsits
I ield Obscrvalitlns: x Drlinage I'mtems in Wetlands
Sctilnldary Indlcaltin, S 2 11T niom rcquiR71 r
1" 01 l1 I•Sturtaec W:11el. 0-1 1111.1 x Oxidized Roof Channels in Zapper I ? Inches
x %ler-Stained LeavcN
Deplh to Fax Willer in Pit: 13 Iln.l Lucid Soil Survey paw
_PAC'-NellIm1 Test
Depth to Satnllledl SIHI, ti (111.1 rhher [ expliiin in Rcnmi ksl
Rcnlarkti: The lkwiralar„l• as.swciared with If •erland A appears rcr be a rrsmh from berth rratrtrah topal;raphp and perindir iwerhteak fla14•.s from the
adjacent trihutarl: This ive eland is' .siltaeed ahang fire ripe of 1he :Sidesde6pe between the upland area and creel, rhamneh. The rmajori{r' of
the +eellrnd is ca.dhr discernable dire' to hLs drainage patfern.s.
SOILS
Map l snit Nanc
tScnes, and PIIatiCI Chewudu Mam Ihalnage Ckiss ,Srpmek'hat peoup- P drained
Firld 0h cTvititin+
IX4iTIOmy (Suhgrosq+) fluven
urAtir• k
wrude
rs CoI1I111TI Ma
d T
'
FN
j
.
p ppe
ype
u
,
Pnsllle Description.
DL-PIII Matrix Color MOHIC C'olnn Moulc Temurc. Concretions.
(incltc-s) Horizon (Mutscll Mnisl) (Mun ell Moist) Abundance;C•ontmst Structure, etc.
4-2 : t I III }'R 413 10 FR 512 ronenann/rlisrirai7 fuane
2-" A2 10 }'R 512 lA 1'R 5/' e'anttuart/rl%stiae r silt loam
7-12 HN'I IIl FR 512 10 iR 5/' earreAanre/faitrl silty rlar
12-16+ Hu-2 10 Y R 512 M }R 1712 e r+rrarrrrrrd wirer silt lows
Ilsalrir Soil Indicalors
Hislosol _C «nerrtinns
IIIM IC ? pipt'dettt -High Organic C'onlcnt to Surfi.we Uyei in Sandy Soila
Sullidic odor _[lrganic Streaking In Salsify sails
_Ayuic Muisturc Rep me ? I. sIC'ii i+n bl+ aI Hydric Soils List
x Rt.?ducing Cmididorts e I esllYl on National Ilydric Soils L.i,t
?
Glcvcd or I.e+w-Chroma C ohuI 01Iu•r (Explain in Rematk?J
Ron; irks? The uarek'rlyyAg soils appear to her of Me tvpir•al Chewaela varieh,. The ce toils apprarfrr a hihia a Asst' lens flear perrhea surface wafer
for extended permits of brae. Tish lens. coupled N'rfh r•nauuuar+A.S' Iii-extork trampling, has restrlt'erl in anaerahir soil conditions
throughout these are3a.%.
WE LAND 'ERMINA ON

I Iydmphy9ic Vegoation l'rc Clu" Y es No
Welland Hydntlogy Prescut? Yes No
I IydriC SoIIS Plv'sentY'es No
Is Ibis Sampling Point Within a Welland:' 1"es No
1.49 it.I rk ti
Apprtwed by HOUSAC h 391
DATA FORM
ROU'T'INE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COI: Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Prc>'jectlSi tr:
ApplicanVUwncr:
InvetilignIor(N) ;
Charles Williani.v ltren?ri and ffedatul.Sitc
L•'c•ulugic al Enghreeri..g/ EF. P
Lane Sa??ls A C Carne 1f17ys r
Dei Normal Circumstances exist on the situ?
Is the site significantly disturbW LAtypical Situation )?
Is this i1rCa :1 polentlilI Problem Alc•:1"
I1111cedcLl. explain on reverxrt
Yes Nu
Yeti Nn
Ycs No
Dale: 51612008
County: Randedph
Slatc: North Carolina
Communily 117 C.pkrnd.•i
Tmnsect ID:
Not II). Taken rat Flax If'L A-lZ
VEGETATION
Dominant Phint Slx•ci" Stmiurn 111di:11tol 1XV11Inalrlt Killt SI]CC1L'} Suaiunl Indicalur
I r-e:aTnca .5p. Jjerh FA C 't-
Z. Rannuculus -5p. herb FA C• I o.
?. Tri offinnsp. herh F1 C• 1I-
4 Erhinacloa .sp. herh F.4 C
-
12
?- Tareararatm offirinale herb FACV- i
6. 14
7. 1

I'crcent ofDonlinam Specic± Ihat arr(IBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC }. Approx. NO%
Rcm:lrkti: ,=1rr=a is erarr.side=re=d rr?+irrrl?rplrtnd purrrerr.
I1YDROLOCv
RL'torded ILI.: f De-scnhe in Rcrnarks)
SIream, L ikc, or lido. Gauge
Acrial Phologrlphw
01hcF
X No RecorAd Dala Av:iilahlc Wcll:mJ Hvdmklgy Indicatoiv
I'iim:uy Indieators
Inundated
Satumled in upper 12 InchL1
Wtater 11+t;1rks
Oil IT I.r I Ics
_
_5t'dilllenl Dcpol ils
Field Ohservations: Drllnage I'mtems in Wcthinds
SL'L!,mdnly Indicators 1 2 or nwiv rL!qultvd):
Ihpih of Sui-14cc Water_ a/a (111.1 Oxidircd Rwl C•hanncls in L.1ppei 12 Inches
Watcr-Stained Lwves
Dcpih III I-rLc Waicr in I'11: I" (tll. i _
Lcx:ai Soil Survey Data
FAC•-Ncutnil Tula
DcPl11 in Satunnc(I 51111: n1a I ii.I Chher 1 Fxpla111 In ROMLI kt 1
I?etll:l rlCti: No hydroh),gr• or hvdrolu,>wic indirurors werv suite=d within 12 inehe,5' of the snrfsce.
SMLS
Map Unil N:nnv
(Serics and Phase) F onve sandy' I(jum Diatnage Class: well draine d
Field 01-Iscrvations
Taxnnrnny (Subgroup) `':ypir huphlduhs Confirm Ma
ed C
' Y
', FN
pp
ype
L
Pn)filc DLNcriplion.
DLpllt Matrix Color moll le Color" Moulc Texture. C'nnrreuunti.
[inclauw) Horizon (Muns4ll Mow) fMunsell Moietl Ahundance C'uutrist Structure, cte.
11.4 :1p 14 4R 612 10 3R SN+ commsnesldi,elinrs sandylomns
4-10 B11 2,5 1 613 afore n1a In anti, sand
10-1- Bs: Z.5 y 714 F$01 e• 111a h+un a• .tiro;
171 B13 2.5 Y ?/.l 2.5 } 41; cn•/di find sands' rh V 1401111;
liudm: `rnl Indirafooti
flisloyfl Concretions
I Iistic Epir"on _ E Figh Organic C'oment in Surface Layer m Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor `Organic Strti-oking in Sandy Suits
Ayuic Wimur4 Regime Listed on Laacal Hydric Soils LiNt
Rolucing CondiIions Listed on National Hydric Snip Lim
61tjLd stir Low-('hrcmia Urfa}! 01lier fFxplain in Remsrksl
Remark,
WE TI,AI' D DETERMINATION
M
HydrnphvIIC VegoaIinn Prt?scm
-11 No
Wetland Hydrology Pre%Lni' Yeti Vn
Hvdlii Sail, Pre,CllfYL? Nn
Is dais Sampling Pnitat Wtllun a Wefland" Yeti Nu
F2rmarks:
I I
Apptxaved by FIOUSACL 3.1412
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1187 COI: Wetlands Dclineation Manual)
Project/Sitc: Charles Williams Streaur and 01'elland Silt Date:
Applicant/Owner: rcolo •ieal Gar •ineerirr /EGP County
Investigalrlr> s): bine.Sauls & Charlie lfu,sser State:
Do Numrsl Circumstances cxisl i,n Illc siIC"
Is Oi site ognilicarilly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is Ihis uue i a pt+lcnllal Problem Area
i if need(,d, cx11Ia111 on revcrxcI
Ycs No
Ycti No
Yes N?
('omnuulity ID
1 rlnsect ID:
Plot 1D:
S/b/1008
Ruadalpir
North Carolina
H illanl 8
TaAR -it at Flag II L B- Ilt
VEGETATION
Domwant Plain Species SIMIUrn Indicalm I)uminanl Plant Spl"vic• Slrltum Inelicalul
I Bacerpa.sp. herb OBL 7.
'. Rammncnlu.v sp, herb F; t , I [i.
;. JanesiN of nsm herb F: iCW+ I 1 .
-l. Poingoneem:sp, herh rA01' 12.
5. Leanna sf+, herb OBL I i
6. 14
7. 1
x I r,.
PLlCent IIt Donll tl:li11 SlICCI" 111:0 are 0 B L FACW. 11r FAC (C.%,c ludl ng FAC. ). if7f)" eI
Remarks: The area els.vociated with Wetland 8 is 11, ept in a verl, lease state ofnalteral ,sereression due lei e.xisreng livestock (rattle) influen ee.S. It is
ronsidered e_ wing paslearelands• and i.s' hlcatell within the existing floodplain of the unnamed Irihnlar? to ,Satedv Creek. Thix wulland
area enrompassea a inajori(v elf the floadrolain area alaag rhiti vide of the rhanne'l. It is connected with the Choooel of its downstream
IIYDROLOGY
_ Reim cl Data (Drsunbc in Remarks)
Stwam. Lakc, ur tldr Wuvv-
Acrid Phololgra11hs
Chhen
X No kecorcle(I I ala Avail:lhle Weiland Hydmklgy Indicalor4
PnrnarV hidicamns,
x Inundawd
x Saturned in UPpcr I' Inches
x Water Marks
x Drill Lines
ScdilrlCnt Dcpnsils
1:iL!Id Obs[rvatiills. x Drainage Patlcrns in Wcllan&
SLcondiary Indicator, 12 ormare required}:
DePtll Ili-5nrfscc W;lte'T 0-1 lin,l x 0xidi,, ed Rtx11 Channels in UPpcr I' 11 icIw,
x water-Slailml1.exlves
Dmh to Fret Watcr in Pit h (in. i Lo(al Soil Survey Data
i
FAC-Neull.ll )cal
1]011111 III Salurlled Soil: it tIII,I ?1her(Explain in Rcmaiks)
Rc'nl,trks: The Jerdrolo,gy rassorialed with Welland B appears to he a re.s'a1t from both nalural rnpagrraplrs• unel periodir toverhanR flren•sfrom the-
adjacent tributary. This wetland is .siteeared along the ror raf ille sidexlope het+reen the apland area and creek rhanare k The majearihr of
Ilse wetland is easily discernable due lei its drainage pattrrra.s.
soil's
Map Unit Name
(Scries and Phase) C'heel'ocla I(sam lhninage Class SPlne whal pooriv drained
Ficld Ohservalinns
I:ssnnnmv 15uhgmupl IlaliarylrenticelpsYrudepix Cun111
M
d T
e
Y
F N
m
appe
yp
.
cx
Prnllle ?e-scnpnou:
rxtpt11 Matrix Color Mt pit le CnlcIn Mettle Texture. Concrctiolls,
rinclJCS= Hsninln (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moisl) Abundance,'C'ontrast Structure, etc-
0-4 :1l 10 YR 612 11) 3'R 414 conllnr+nldislinct sill limns
4-14-4- li+e' 2.5 Y516 215 YR 416 e'e+liN77(!lL flf.SYINeY 5'llty clay lnum
11VLfT1C Snit IncliCLOOD,
_ Hislosol Concretions
I1is11c Lpipedon _ high Organic Content 1n Surt'ace Layer in tia+ldv tiuils
Sullidic Odos _Organic St1,< U12 in Sandv Suit,
_Aquie Moklurc Regime x LiMed on laical Hvdric Soils l_isl
x Reducing C ondilluns
^ ? Listcd on Nanonal Hydnc Snlh I isl
GIeyLd or lanv-C'I1l'olma Cok1t\ x (hhCF (Explain in ftc•111Mk.)
Itcnlarks: The ar+de=r11'il+ sr+ils appear if) he of the t5y+icul (Yren'urla curie^{;'. 7lrese srrilc apprur to etrlsihir u ela t' le'rrs 7hml In -n !re'S .5+rrlix'e' well
I
far t'vfe°nded pe'rio(ft of rim e=. This lens, re)Uple•d with rn aria isaus Iive.vrecl trampling, has resulfed in anm e'ro is b7+dl e'fllydifi us
thr[+uxhout the.5e arr'rs.ti_ In addition, the arers looks lei have heen Bled tit one lime- based on rltr eviving linear drainage depres.vlsen,5.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

llvdroll 11Y1IL: VCgC1Jllinn Pnese•nt" Yes No
Wetland livdmlclgy Present" Yes No
I lvlhll' Sn1ls pFLNelt-' Yes Nu
Is t1w, S411111111IlL Point WIth11i a wola d'Yes 'Ve1
ttenulrks.
Approved by HQkISAt r. 3 92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1487 COO Wetlands Delineation Manual)
projcctlSitc:
Appiicam.AOwner:
Investigator(s):
Charles Williams Shearer and
I1'! Ilurrrl.5'ile
Ecrrlrrgiral Ertgirreleringl EEII
Lrrrre Sarllti & Charlie Aftr,sser
Date: 51612008
County:. Randolph
Stale: North Carolina
17x1 Normal Owunislanecz c%isi on the site!
Is the site signif icantly disill rllcd ( AIyllicaI Srluation)"
Is Ihls area a polcu11:iI Problem Aiva"
f II IlMiCll, C% Ph rrl I$I1 revolt')
VEGETATION
Dom mallt Plafil specks Silallllll Indicator Dominam Plani Spcuici Sliilium IFI&C:1101
I'e.5'114e'0 s!), herh VIC I)
?. flaartaruhl•5 ,till, herh F.4C III.
3. Tri oliam Nly. herb FA[' I I .
4. Ayerslr, herb VAC 1-1.
S. TaraSaram ljfeirrale herb FACV- 13
6 14
7, 1 i
ti
.
10
Per cent of Domwalir SpccieN that a re OBL. I'ACW. or FAC (excluding FAC-1. Approx. 8#%
Remark.. Ilea i5 el7a?idere'd r{pi['al rlplarrllltt7.5'rare'.
HYDROLOGY
Rccolnkxi Data {Dculihe in Remalrk.I
Scram. Like, or tide (,: kwc
Acrial Photographs
Met
X No RccorcLd Daw fllvailahlc WelL inki Hyth llogy Indicator}:
Plimmy hidicators:
InunciatiA
?Satumtctl in Upper 12 Inches
Water Markti
DIIII Lines
Sclllillelll I pl% NiIn
field Observations: _Dnamagc Patterns In Wctland.4
St'iexlCININ Indicator` 13 or Itlolr reduiretll:
Dep01 IIF4urlace Waster: !!/a (ill.1 0-idlied Row Channels II1 Uppei I-' Inches
Water-Slaiucd Lcuv«
Depth to Free Water in Pit I" (in I l_cwal Still Survey Data
-
_FAC-Nculiul Tc-tit
Depth to Salumml So& rrla (ill } iOIIICI-(IA11111 I11 ill Rciilaar'ks)
Remarks, Nn hpdrelekg or hydrologic indiramrs were a'l+red n'idiin 12 inehev of the .SWrface.
4'eS No ('OMMLill ily ID, Upland R
Yes HN. 71:nlsw ID:
Ycs Plot ID. Tal.elr at FA q N L B-10
Sn1I,S
Map I Intl Name
i Senes and Phasrl C'hovae•Ia Iuam Drainage CIIItis Sam4,what pooriv drained
Field Observations
1 Is41F14Ilfl, (St I hgruupI Flurayllentir dr:crrndeprs Confirm Ma
d T
c.' Y
M1
ppc
eti
Vp
u
Plnlile Ilcuriptiun:
Ekpth Matrix Color MIMIC C1liprs Mvltle Tcxture. C kmcrenonl-,
(inchci) Hmi/on (Munsell Mow) (Mllnscll MOISO Abundance'Cuntrust Structure, Cie
0-4 1P 10 }R 541 10 YR 412 commonldl:+rincr sill Inanr
III }'R 414 ruarrnnryilisYinrr Of Mum
4-III 811.1 10 }•R 514 If) }R )Ih commata/diyitset -Vitt l'I£!1' INata!
10 V R tIh romrall/rfAwisicl vilty ('Ia)' Iaam
III-I + Rw2 IN YR 514 fU }•R 614 commaa>?di.sfine•r sills' da4'Ieterrn
Ifaldrir Sllil Inahc';unc?
r Iis1o_u11 CUI1CfetIUl15
? Histlc Cplpedon ? High Organic Content in Surface L aycr in San& Shits
_Sullidic ()1I11r -Organic Stre:lking in Sanely Suits
Acluic Moisture RLginte Listed Iln Local Hydrir Soils List
Reducing Conditious -Listed kill Nalional Hydric Snits Lesl
Cilcwd 1Ir I ins-C'hmma t'olors Other I Explain in f;emarksl
Rl'nlark
WETLAND 1)LTIO"RMINATI0N
F
-
I-ivdr'uphyuc Vegetation Pre cnt•'
es Nl+
,
Wetland Ilythillogy I'resent-f Yes No
f lydne 51111" I'Tescnl" Yc`: Nu 11111k S:u11111111g hOilll W1Ihill ;I WO 1;111(1"' yta
R e'l II III
A111l11 lvcd lly FIyt IN At L ,V-1,.
Appendix 8
Project Site Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DIS'1'RICT
Action Id. 200803065 C oUnty: Rands lph U.S.C_i.S. Quad: Crav Chapels
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Lane Sauls, Jr.
Address: F cological Eneincerinu
128 Raleigh Sired
Holly Spring, NC 27540
Telephone No.: 919 557-0929715-7217
Property description
Size (acres) 10 Nearest Town Ramseur
Nearest Waterway Sandy Creek River Basin Deers River
USCiS I IUC 03030003 Coordinates N -35.8269094 W -79.6508014
Location description Charles Willimnas farm lucaled off of Ramseur-Julian Road (SR 2442), adjacent to Sandy
Creek, north of Ramseur. in Randolph County. North Carolina.
Indicate Which of (lie Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Departrnent of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This prclinunary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process [ Reference 33 C FR Paul 331).
B. Approved Determination
']'here arc Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and I [arbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
1 There are waters of the U .S. on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the
w Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 l7SC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations. this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to time size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
- The wetland on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Capon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified. this survey will provide an accurate depiction ofall areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
Five years.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by (lie Corps Regulatory Official identified below on 11151200$. Unless there is a change in time law or our
published regulations. this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this deterunation may be relied upon for a period not to exceed live years from the date of this
notification.
Pale 1 of 2
Action 1D:
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 3111 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program please contact John Thomas at 919 554-4884 ext. 25.
C. Basis For Determination
There are stream channels within your proiect site which are tributaries of Sandy Creek which flows into the Deep
River and (lie Atlantic Ocean.
D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address;
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn:Jean Manucle, Project Manager,
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, Forth Carolina 27587
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Offtcc within 00 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an Itd=A foriri, it must be received at the above address by Januar- 5. 2009.
**It is not necessary to submit art RFA f m to the District Office if you clo not abject to the determination in this
correspondence. **
i?
Corps Regulatory Official:
r
Date 1110512008 Expiration Date 11/05/2013
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at http://regulatory.usacesurvey.coml to
complete the survey online.
Copy furnished:
Page 2 of 2
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQ[JI;ST FOR APPEAL
1i?iicalt€: Charles ?? IIiI?lIllti i arm Lal:c.
i U3 E~tlc `Jtunt?cr: SAGS' ?I?()? ?a[e: November (]5, 7(}f)
Sauls /Ecological Engineerita0b5
R
Attached is:
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of pe mission
PERMI'I' DENIAL
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
PRELIMINARY.iURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
See Section below
A
B
C
D
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administta(ilve appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at liit ://www,usace.arq miI/inet/fLinetl'oiislcw/ceewo/re 7 or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or ot)ject to the permit.
+ AC'CEP'T: Ifyou received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer fir final
authorisation. ll'you received a Letter of'Permission (LOP). you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
+ OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the fiomt to the district engineer. Your
objections trust be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the fitture. tJpon receipt of your teller, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns. (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify [lie permit
having determined that the pert should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
S: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• AC'C1 PT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms ant] conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the pcrtnit.
¦ APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. '['his form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of (lie date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit raider the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section Ii of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This forth must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice-
D: APPRUV EL) J URISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may acceptor appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
+ APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of (lie date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SUCTION 11 - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL,
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. I lowever, you may provide additional information to clan fy
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QU
If you have questions regarding this deeisioil
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
John Thomas @,, 919 554-4884 ext. 25
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
may also contact:
Mr. Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIG14T OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
ins Lsti,ations.
Date:
Signature of atmcllant or
Telephone number:
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn.Jean Manuele, Project Manager, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, 3331 Heritage Trade Drive , Suite 105, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this farm to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8801
Appendix 9
Wetland Reference Site USACE Routine On-Site Wetland
Determination Data Forms
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Charles Williams Stream and Wetland Site
Ecological Engineering/EEP
Lane Sauls
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is this area a potential Problem Area?
on
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Date: 912912008
County: Randolph
State: North Carolina
Community ID: Reference Wetland
Transect ID:
Plot ID: n/a
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Platanus occidentahs Canopy FACW 9.
2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Canopy FACW 10.
3. Uhnus americana Canopy FACW it.
4. Carpinus carolinana Sub-canopy FAC 12.
5. Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 13.
6. Microstegium vimineum Herb FAC 14.
7. Saururus cernuus Herb OBL 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
x Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
x Water Marks
x Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0-6 (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 4 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
_
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 (in.) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The hydrology associated with the Reference Wetland appears to he a resuh from natural topography and periodic overhank flows
from Sandy Creek. This wetland is situated along the toe of the sideslope between the upland area and creek channel The majority of
the wetland is easily discernahle due to its drainage patterns.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonom
(Sub
rou
) Fluva
uentic d
strude
ts Confirm Ma
ed T
e? Yes F-N.]
y
g
p q
y
p pp
yp
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 A 10 YR 512 loam
10-16 Bw1 10 YR 512 10 YR 517 common distinct silt loam
16+ Bw2 10 YR 512 10 YR 712 common/faint silt loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
I I
Approvea oy HQuNAw, siyz
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Charles Williams Stream and Wetland Site
Ecological Engineering/EEP
Lane Sauls
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is this area a potential Problem Area?
on
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Date: 912912008
County: Randolph
State: North Carolina
Community ID: Reference Upland
Transect ID:
Plot ID: n/a
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Platanus occidentahs Canopy FACW 9.
2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Canopy FACW 10.
3. Uhnus americana Canopy FACW it.
4. Carpinus carolinana Sub-canopy FAC 12.
5. Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 13.
6. Microstegium vimineum Herb FAC 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: n/a (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: n/a (in.) _
Local Soil Survey Data
_
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: n/a (in.) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No hydrology or hydrologic indicators were noted within 12 inches of the surface.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonom
(Sub
rou
) Fluva
uentic d strude
ts Confirm Ma
ed T
e? Yes F-N.]
y
g
p q y
p pp
yp
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 Ap 10 YR 513 10 YR 412 common distinct silt loam
10 YR 414 common distinct silt loam
4-10 Bw1 10 YR 514 10 YR 516 common distinct silty clay loam
10 YR 316 common distinct silty clay loam
10-17+ Bw2 10 YR 514 10 YR 614 common distinct silty clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
F
-
]
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
es
No
y
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
I I
Approvea oy HQuNAw, siyz
Appendix 10
HEGRAS Analysis
HEC-RAS Plan: DupEffective River: Sandy Creek Reach: Reach - 1
Reach River Ste Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Reach - 1 1093.3 100-Year 9626.00 432.13 446.51 441.10 447.57 0.002828 8.97 2005.04 325.11 0.42
Reach - 1 1093.3 100-yr FW 9626.00 432.13 447.21 441.11 448.06 0.002206 8.18 1981.65 190.00 0.37

Reach - 1 1609.3 100-Year 9626.00 431.77 447.82 441.52 449.25 0.002954 9.86 1419.99 308.25 0.44
Reach - 1 1609.3 100-yr FW 9626.00 431.77 448.22 441.52 449.55 0.002679 9.55 1430.96 209.44 0.42

Reach - 1 1624.3 Bridge

Reach - 1 1639.3 100-Year 9626.00 432.00 450.58 441.75 451.41 0.001526 7.83 2382.83 424.98 0.32
Reach - 1 1639.3 100-yr FW 9626.00 432.00 451.14 441.75 451.97 0.001436 7.75 1995.83 210.00 0.31

Reach - 1 1934.9 100-Year 9626.00 432.52 451.29 451.87 0.001109 6.71 3053.57 501.35 0.27
Reach - 1 1934.9 100-yr FW 9626.00 432.52 451.91 452.41 0.000945 6.33 3268.32 459.19 0.25

Reach - 1 2500.0 100-Year 9626.00 433.49 451.84 452.66 0.001467 7.60 2244.54 451.88 0.31
Reach - 1 2500.0 100-yr FW 9626.00 433.49 452.36 453.11 0.001293 7.27 2310.35 350.00 0.30

Reach - 1 2842.6 100-Year 9626.00 434.29 452.31 453.21 0.001617 7.88 1950.01 328.94 0.33
Reach - 1 2842.6 100-yr FW 9626.00 434.29 452.76 453.61 0.001480 7.67 1881.19 232.00 0.32

Reach - 1 3500.0 100-Year 9626.00 434.80 453.47 454.16 0.001260 7.13 2703.09 569.75 0.29
Reach - 1 3500.0 100-yr FW 9626.00 434.80 453.85 454.48 0.001141 6.88 2851.37 545.00 0.28

Reach - 1 4000.0 100-Year 9626.00 435.38 454.18 454.77 0.001108 6.72 2723.37 408.69 0.27
Reach - 1 4000.0 100-yr FW 9626.00 435.38 454.48 455.03 0.001037 6.57 2754.97 371.17 0.27

Reach - 1 4500.0 100-Year 9626.00 435.94 454.81 455.29 0.000964 6.28 3414.20 469.29 0.26
Reach - 1 4500.0 100-yr FW 9626.00 435.94 455.07 455.53 0.000917 6.18 3365.18 401.77 0.25

Reach - 1 5000.0 100-Year 9626.00 437.68 455.13 456.07 0.001780 8.10 1842.58 304.19 0.34
Reach - 1 5000.0 100-yr FW 9626.00 437.68 455.35 456.29 0.001725 8.04 1761.32 251.04 0.34

Reach - 1 5363.9 100-Year 9626.00 437.79 455.77 456.70 0.001654 7.97 1784.76 281.44 0.33
Reach - 1 5363.9 100-yr FW 9626.00 437.79 456.01 456.89 0.001549 7.78 1807.67 236.10 0.32

Reach - 1 5632.3 100-Year 9626.00 440.93 456.14 451.26 457.60 0.003710 10.39 1453.73 168.52 0.48
Reach - 1 5632.3 100-yr FW 9626.00 440.93 456.35 451.26 457.76 0.003519 10.22 1487.69 166.47 0.47

Reach - 1 5656.8 Bridge

Reach - 1 5681.3 100-Year 9626.00 441.45 456.78 451.78 458.21 0.003594 10.28 1473.38 169.36 0.48
Reach - 1 5681.3 100-yr FW 9626.00 441.45 456.95 451.78 458.34 0.003443 10.14 1501.47 166.86 0.47

Reach - 1 6058.3 100-Year 9626.00 441.72 458.35 459.34 0.002011 8.34 1707.98 190.59 0.36
Reach - 1 6058.3 100-yr FW 9626.00 441.72 458.39 459.44 0.002089 8.51 1499.71 125.00 0.37

Reach - 1 6500.0 100-Year 9626.00 447.41 459.09 461.14 0.006683 11.99 1067.30 126.02 0.62
Reach - 1 6500.0 100-yr FW 9626.00 447.41 459.11 461.33 0.007019 12.31 953.70 94.57 0.64

Reach - 1 6841.3 100-Year 9626.00 448.35 461.66 462.84 0.003538 9.52 1539.37 186.21 0.46
Reach - 1 6841.3 100-yr FW 9626.00 448.35 461.75 463.17 0.003954 10.12 1233.82 108.00 0.49

Reach - 1 7101.4 100-Year 9626.00 448.29 462.40 457.33 464.04 0.003931 10.44 1031.88 100.25 0.49
Reach - 1 7101.4 100-yr FW 9626.00 448.29 462.67 457.33 464.24 0.003688 10.24 1053.06 101.12 0.48

Reach - 1 7146.4 Inl Struct

Reach - 1 7191.4 100-Year 9626.00 448.53 496.22 457.56 496.27 0.000033 2.17 11381.96 568.66 0.06
Reach - 1 7191.4 100-yr FW 9626.00 448.53 497.11 457.56 497.17 0.000033 2.19 9449.54 300.00 0.06

Reach - 1 8387.5 100-Year 9626.00 451.48 496.24 496.33 0.000059 2.76 6866.39 359.84 0.07
Reach - 1 8387.5 100-yr FW 9626.00 451.48 497.13 497.23 0.000055 2.71 6218.55 200.00 0.07

Reach - 1 10238.2 100-Year 9539.00 455.94 496.36 496.45 0.000065 2.72 8294.70 616.77 0.08
Reach - 1 10238.2 100-yr FW 9539.00 455.94 497.24 497.36 0.000078 3.01 5378.19 200.00 0.08

Reach - 1 11965.5 100-Year 9539.00 460.11 496.51 496.55 0.000055 2.32 11045.65 577.21 0.07
Reach - 1 11965.5 100-yr FW 9539.00 460.11 497.40 497.49 0.000081 2.87 6414.43 200.00 0.08

Reach - 1 13837.8 100-Year 9539.00 464.63 496.55 496.79 0.000212 4.18 3766.82 252.35 0.13
Reach - 1 13837.8 100-yr FW 9539.00 464.63 497.53 497.75 0.000187 4.01 3845.35 200.00 0.12

Reach - 1 15618.6 100-Year 9441.00 468.93 496.98 497.22 0.000272 4.34 3983.01 279.90 0.14
Reach - 1 15618.6 100-yr FW 9441.00 468.93 497.90 498.14 0.000254 4.30 3645.63 200.00 0.14

Reach - 1 16897.8 100-Year 9244.00 472.02 497.31 497.71 0.000471 5.34 2583.26 179.24 0.19
Reach - 1 16897.8 100-yr FW 9244.00 472.02 498.22 498.59 0.000414 5.12 2628.21 150.00 0.18

Reach - 1 17947.3 100-Year 9244.00 474.56 497.87 498.24 0.000530 5.36 2714.89 212.22 0.20
Reach - 1 17947.3 100-yr FW 9244.00 474.56 498.67 499.20 0.000622 5.94 1830.16 80.00 0.21
HEC-RAS Plan: DupEffective River: Sandy Creek Reach: Reach - 1 (Continued)
Reach River Ste Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)

Reach - 1 18500.0 100-Year 9244.00 475.89 498.08 498.66 0.000785 6.31 2052.36 185.41 0.24
Reach - 1 18500.0 100-yr FW 9244.00 475.89 498.98 499.61 0.000768 6.41 1544.88 69.00 0.24

Reach - 1 19000.0 100-Year 9244.00 477.10 498.56 499.05 0.000743 6.01 2536.71 218.77 0.23
Reach - 1 19000.0 100-yr FW 9244.00 477.10 499.42 500.00 0.000777 6.30 1836.92 90.00 0.24

Reach - 1 19500.0 100-Year 9244.00 478.30 498.88 499.52 0.000974 6.68 2089.90 273.88 0.26
Reach - 1 19500.0 100-yr FW 9244.00 478.30 499.76 500.47 0.000957 6.82 1508.85 75.00 0.26

Reach - 1 20000.0 100-Year 9244.00 479.51 499.52 499.98 0.000822 6.03 2743.99 319.10 0.24
Reach - 1 20000.0 100-yr FW 9244.00 479.51 500.25 500.97 0.001027 6.90 1574.22 8200 . 0.27

Reach - 1 20500.0 100-Year 9244.00 480.72 499.81 500.58 0.001279 7.29 1751.44 192.44 0.29
Reach - 1 20500.0 100-yr FW 9244.00 480.72 500.75 501.54 0.001175 7.21 1467.14 80.00 0.28

Reach - 1 21000.0 100-Year 9244.00 481.92 500.63 501.19 0.001080 6.61 2827.45 429.00 0.27
Reach - 1 21000.0 100-yr FW 9244.00 481.92 501.34 502.16 0.001286 7.39 1456.56 84.00 0.30

Reach - 1 21500.0 100-Year 9244.00 483.13 501.14 501.83 0.001339 7.17 2507.11 446.03 0.30
Reach - 1 21500.0 100-yr FW 9244.00 483.13 501.96 502.88 0.001491 7.79 1312.36 74.50 0.32

Reach - 1 22000.0 100-Year 9244.00 484.34 501.88 502.49 0.001293 6.92 2528.11 333.71 0.29
Reach - 1 22000.0 100-yr FW 9244.00 484.34 502.87 503.60 0.001314 7.24 1733.61 107.81 0.30

Reach - 1 22118.8 100-Year 9244.00 484.63 501.93 494.26 502.83 0.002098 8.13 1611.46 333.24 0.35
Reach - 1 22118.8 100-yr FW 9244.00 484.63 503.01 494.26 503.81 0.001720 7.66 1756.20 134.00 0.32

Reach - 1 22142.8 Bridge

Reach - 1 22166.8 100-Year 9244.00 485.04 502.38 494.67 503.28 0.002080 8.10 1616.94 333.50 0.35
Reach - 1 22166.8 100-yr FW 9244.00 485.04 503.57 494.67 504.36 0.001669 7.59 1776.38 134.00 0.31

Reach - 1 22500.0 100-Year 8075.00 486.79 503.34 503.94 0.001413 6.93 2307.59 318.11 0.30
Reach - 1 22500.0 100-yr FW 8075.00 486.79 504.16 504.90 0.001478 7.32 1569.74 116.47 0.31

Reach - 1 23000.0 100-Year 8075.00 486.86 503.97 504.73 0.001552 7.43 1776.23 214.64 0.32
Reach - 1 23000.0 100-yr FW 8075.00 486.86 504.82 505.71 0.001570 7.72 1260.21 79.33 0.32

Reach - 1 23500.0 100-Year 8075.00 486.93 504.75 505.46 0.001366 7.16 1889.23 237.31 0.30
Reach - 1 23500.0 100-yr FW 8075.00 486.93 505.62 506.45 0.001383 7.44 1269.68 77.38 0.30

Reach - 1 24000.0 100-Year 8066.00 487.00 505.54 506.07 0.001037 6.41 2627.81 387.94 0.26
Reach - 1 24000.0 100-yr FW 8066.00 487.00 506.50 507.05 0.000967 6.40 2116.27 198.15 0.26

Reach - 1 24500.0 100-Year 8066.00 487.07 505.98 506.69 0.001214 7.02 1641.25 152.61 0.29
Reach - 1 24500.0 100-yr FW 8066.00 487.07 506.87 507.65 0.001188 7.16 1246.91 65.54 0.28

Reach - 1 25075.0 100-Year 8066.00 487.15 506.77 507.31 0.000941 6.34 2007.96 181.57 0.25
Reach - 1 25075.0 100-yr FW 8066.00 487.15 507.68 508.27 0.000901 6.39 1688.98 92.24 0.25

Reach - 1 25544.6 100-Year 8066.00 487.21 507.23 507.74 0.000872 6.19 2205.70 212.37 0.24
Reach - 1 25544.6 100-yr FW 8066.00 487.21 508.11 508.68 0.000861 6.32 1713.23 95.02 0.24

Reach - 1 26000.0 100-Year 8066.00 488.49 507.58 508.24 0.001133 6.83 1839.11 202.53 0.28
Reach - 1 26000.0 100-yr FW 8066.00 488.49 508.44 509.17 0.001117 6.98 1363.20 74.10 0.28

Reach - 1 26258.6 100-Year 8066.00 491.81 508.10 499.46 508.57 0.001051 6.06 2316.60 244.07 0.27
Reach - 1 26258.6 100-yr FW 8066.00 491.81 508.98 499.39 509.51 0.001022 6.19 1806.53 122.02 0.26

Reach - 1 26274.8 Bridge

Reach - 1 26291.1 100-Year 8066.00 491.08 508.30 498.74 508.71 0.000847 5.65 2547.38 256.35 0.24
Reach - 1 26291.1 100-yr FW 8066.00 491.08 509.19 498.65 509.67 0.000850 5.85 1921.72 122.02 0.24

Reach - 1 26559.3 100-Year 8066.00 494.10 508.39 509.35 0.002616 8.54 1491.59 157.27 0.40
Reach - 1 26559.3 100-yr FW 8066.00 494.10 509.24 510.35 0.002559 8.79 1199.98 87.15 0.40

Reach - 1 27000.0 100-Year 8066.00 497.76 509.25 511.57 0.007311 12.34 749.99 95.75 0.64
Reach - 1 27000.0 100-yr FW 8066.00 497.76 510.19 512.27 0.005802 11.59 725.91 60.50 0.58

Reach - 1 27500.0 100-Year 8066.00 498.21 512.69 513.87 0.002920 9.11 1191.31 221.97 0.42
Reach - 1 27500.0 100-yr FW 8066.00 498.21 513.01 514.43 0.003171 9.63 909.66 64.29 0.44

Reach - 1 28000.0 100-Year 8066.00 499.64 514.26 515.25 0.002556 8.57 1471.16 218.69 0.40
Reach - 1 28000.0 100-yr FW 8066.00 499.64 514.73 515.91 0.002681 8.97 1107.20 8200 . 0.41

Reach - 1 28500.0 100-Year 7954.00 500.30 515.39 516.71 0.002913 9.35 1081.91 196.38 0.43
Reach - 1 28500.0 100-yr FW 7954.00 500.30 515.99 517.27 0.002629 9.11 946.67 64.90 0.41

HEC-RAS Plan: DupEffective River: Sandy Creek Reach: Reach - 1 (Continued)
Reach River Ste Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Reach - 1 29000.0 100-Year 7954.00 500.40 517.19 517.69 0.001219 6.49 2265.21 220.44 0.28
Reach - 1 29000.0 100-yr FW 7954.00 500.40 517.81 518.34 0.001564 6.52 1788.12 118.44 0.28

Reach - 1 29555.2 100-Year 7954.00 504.38 517.76 518.98 0.003484 9.43 1339.61 188.05 0.46
Reach - 1 29555.2 100-yr FW 7954.00 504.38 518.42 519.87 0.003569 9.86 968.22 76.49 0.46

Reach - 1 30000.0 100-Year 7954.00 508.93 519.38 521.58 0.008522 12.49 904.24 156.45 0.68
Reach - 1 30000.0 100-yr FW 7954.00 508.93 520.06 522.40 0.007844 12.51 737.03 73.00 0.66

Reach - 1 30500.0 100-Year 7954.00 512.21 523.60 524.77 0.004690 9.82 1428.94 209.38 0.51
Reach - 1 30500.0 100-yr FW 7954.00 512.21 524.12 525.55 0.004888 10.33 1122.70 118.06 0.53

Reach - 1 30895.0 100-Year 7954.00 513.40 525.30 526.79 0.005064 10.51 1255.96 203.32 0.54
Reach - 1 30895.0 100-yr FW 7954.00 513.40 525.88 527.62 0.005125 10.91 922.35 92.64 0.55

Reach - 1 31500.0 100-Year 7954.00 514.28 528.08 529.17 0.003046 9.00 1455.22 198.81 0.43
Reach - 1 31500.0 100-yr FW 7954.00 514.28 528.76 530.02 0.003060 9.32 1091.60 92.33 0.43

Reach - 1 32000.0 100-Year 7954.00 516.18 529.59 530.91 0.003688 9.71 1269.22 193.93 0.47
Reach - 1 32000.0 100-yr FW 7954.00 516.18 530.25 531.78 0.003695 10.04 892.33 70.31 0.47

Reach - 1 32500.0 100-Year 7954.00 516.59 531.40 532.49 0.002660 8.82 1349.99 167.25 0.40
Reach - 1 32500.0 100-yr FW 7954.00 516.59 532.11 533.36 0.002650 9.08 980.81 67.03 0.41

Reach - 1 33012.2 100-Year 7954.00 523.80 532.85 535.57 0.013127 14.08 841.95 142.90 0.83
Reach - 1 33012.2 100-yr FW 7954.00 523.80 533.29 536.59 0.013617 14.80 609.29 71.00 0.85

Reach - 1 33400.5 100-Year 7954.00 524.09 536.97 538.27 0.003949 9.78 1270.90 171.28 0.48
Reach - 1 33400.5 100-yr FW 7954.00 524.09 537.83 539.26 0.003696 9.89 997.63 79.87 0.47

Reach - 1 33932.6 100-Year 7954.00 524.37 539.08 539.78 0.001987 7.59 1906.01 214.45 0.35
Reach - 1 33932.6 100-yr FW 7954.00 524.37 539.92 540.71 0.001923 7.75 1556.40 119.14 0.35

Reach - 1 34438.3 100-Year 7954.00 524.63 539.99 540.86 0.002119 8.07 1612.06 192.06 0.36
Reach - 1 34438.3 100-yr FW 7954.00 524.63 540.80 541.76 0.002045 8.20 1265.54 88.69 0.36

Reach - 1 34993.0 100-Year 7954.00 524.94 541.17 541.94 0.001737 7.58 1776.52 205.74 0.33
Reach - 1 34993.0 100-yr FW 7954.00 524.94 542.01 542.77 0.001561 7.43 1565.38 118.94 0.32

Reach - 1 35397.7 100-Year 7954.00 525.41 541.96 535.43 542.70 0.001994 7.98 2107.61 260.25 0.35
Reach - 1 35397.7 100-yr FW 7954.00 525.41 542.86 535.43 543.45 0.001524 7.23 2199.89 201.00 0.31

Reach - 1 35417.7 Bridge

Reach - 1 35437.7 100-Year 7954.00 527.08 541.70 537.12 542.77 0.003311 9.43 1649.22 217.87 0.44
Reach - 1 35437.7 100-yr FW 7954.00 527.08 542.70 537.12 543.53 0.002444 8.48 1830.88 201.00 0.39

Reach - 1 36000.0 100-Year 7888.00 533.82 544.23 544.59 0.002483 6.72 3144.95 502.11 0.37
Reach - 1 36000.0 100-yr FW 7888.00 533.82 544.63 545.11 0.002789 7.31 2602.81 361.84 0.39

Reach - 1 36500.0 100-Year 7224.00 533.83 545.35 546.33 0.004117 9.22 1598.62 244.81 0.48
Reach - 1 36500.0 100-yr FW 7224.00 533.83 545.82 547.05 0.004424 9.82 1239.18 144.36 0.50

Reach - 1 37000.0 100-Year 7224.00 533.84 547.19 547.48 0.001340 5.81 3114.83 378.98 0.28
Reach - 1 37000.0 100-yr FW 7224.00 533.84 547.91 548.25 0.001334 6.00 2710.01 269.11 0.28

Reach - 1 37500.0 100-Year 7224.00 533.86 547.79 548.41 0.002089 7.46 2106.85 289.86 0.35
Reach - 1 37500.0 100-yr FW 7224.00 533.86 548.47 549.17 0.002032 7.60 1635.14 140.10 0.35

Reach - 1 38000.0 100-Year 7224.00 533.87 548.85 549.26 0.001351 6.30 2515.36 282.74 0.29
Reach - 1 38000.0 100-yr FW 7224.00 533.87 549.54 550.01 0.001355 6.50 2088.59 169.39 0.29

Reach - 1 38500.0 100-Year 7224.00 533.88 549.50 549.91 0.001255 6.25 2522.53 276.75 0.28
Reach - 1 38500.0 100-yr FW 7224.00 533.88 550.19 550.66 0.001257 6.44 2149.75 179.03 0.28

Reach - 1 39000.0 100-Year 7224.00 533.90 550.19 550.41 0.000735 4.92 3812.26 422.31 0.22
Reach - 1 39000.0 100-yr FW 7224.00 533.90 550.91 551.16 0.000731 5.05 3146.00 259.53 0.22

Reach - 1 39500.0 100-Year 7224.00 533.91 550.58 550.73 0.000540 4.28 4761.05 534.12 0.19
Reach - 1 39500.0 100-yr FW 7224.00 533.91 551.31 551.48 0.000536 4.39 4100.34 357.68 0.19

Reach - 1 39952.7 100-Year 7224.00 534.16 550.82 551.00 0.000623 4.59 4408.18 603.80 0.20
Reach - 1 39952.7 100-yr FW 7224.00 534.16 551.54 551.75 0.000619 4.71 3265.83 251.17 0.20

Reach - 1 40560.5 100-Year 7179.00 535.00 551.16 551.58 0.001175 6.18 2361.93 296.99 0.27
Reach - 1 40560.5 100-yr FW 7179.00 535.00 551.86 552.34 0.001175 6.36 1864.12 147.81 0.27

Reach - 1 41000.0 100-Year 7179.00 535.04 551.65 552.12 0.001210 6.39 2289.28 248.53 0.28
Reach - 1 41000.0 100-yr FW 7179.00 535.04 552.35 552.87 0.001204 6.55 1861.37 139.62 0.28

HEC-RAS Plan: DupEffective River: Sandy Creek Reach: Reach - 1 (Continued)
Reach River Ste Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Reach - 1 41500.0 100-Year 7179.00 535.08 552.24 552.69 0.001104 6.24 2370.15 252.69 0.27
Reach - 1 41500.0 100-yr FW 7179.00 535.08 552.94 553.45 0.001104 6.41 1913.85 135.79 0.27

Reach - 1 42000.0 100-Year 7021.00 535.13 552.92 553.02 0.000363 3.66 5089.00 452.28 0.15
Reach - 1 42000.0 100-yr FW 7021.00 535.13 553.67 553.78 0.000347 3.68 4749.00 349.34 0.15

Reach - 1 42462.2 100-Year 7021.00 535.17 553.11 553.17 0.000260 3.12 7446.71 834.52 0.13
Reach - 1 42462.2 100-yr FW 7021.00 535.17 553.85 553.92 0.000258 3.19 6632.34 613.69 0.13

Reach - 1 42838.5 100-Year 7021.00 535.21 553.20 553.28 0.000286 3.27 4520.39 416.67 0.14
Reach - 1 42838.5 100-yr FW 7021.00 535.21 553.94 554.03 0.000285 3.36 4080.80 296.65 0.14

Reach - 1 43500.0 100-Year 7014.00 535.51 553.38 553.57 0.000559 4.56 3763.04 405.07 0.19
Reach - 1 43500.0 100-yr FW 7014.00 535.51 554.11 554.32 0.000554 4.66 3118.23 237.89 0.19

Reach - 1 44000.0 100-Year 7014.00 536.10 553.66 553.86 0.000593 4.64 4265.66 513.52 0.20
Reach - 1 44000.0 100-yr FW 7014.00 536.10 554.39 554.61 0.000587 4.74 3580.05 320.32 0.20

Reach - 1 44500.0 100-Year 7014.00 536.37 554.00 554.06 0.000265 3.11 6363.25 579.55 0.13
Reach - 1 44500.0 100-yr FW 7014.00 536.37 554.74 554.81 0.000262 3.18 5927.87 475.94 0.13

Reach - 1 45000.0 100-Year 7014.00 536.73 554.13 554.24 0.000413 3.85 5252.51 658.10 0.16
Reach - 1 45000.0 100-yr FW 7014.00 536.73 554.86 554.99 0.000408 3.93 4395.12 398.01 0.16

Reach - 1 45500.0 100-Year 7014.00 537.25 554.32 554.52 0.000645 4.74 3856.50 487.35 0.20
Reach - 1 45500.0 100-yr FW 7014.00 537.25 555.05 555.26 0.000622 4.79 3230.57 288.28 0.20

Reach - 1 46000.0 100-Year 7014.00 537.71 554.68 554.75 0.000324 3.35 6346.43 788.74 0.14
Reach - 1 46000.0 100-yr FW 7014.00 537.71 555.41 555.49 0.000312 3.38 5680.32 574.50 0.14

Reach - 1 46645.6 100-Year 7014.00 538.44 554.90 555.00 0.000427 3.77 5605.49 702.48 0.16
Reach - 1 46645.6 100-yr FW 7014.00 538.44 555.62 555.74 0.000424 3.87 4642.03 425.43 0.16

Reach - 1 47000.0 100-Year 7014.00 539.56 555.04 555.22 0.000707 4.65 3799.56 473.15 0.21
Reach - 1 47000.0 100-yr FW 7014.00 539.56 555.75 555.95 0.000703 4.78 3054.52 256.89 0.21

Reach - 1 47500.0 100-Year 7014.00 539.56 555.39 555.57 0.000700 4.70 3974.05 538.41 0.21
Reach - 1 47500.0 100-yr FW 7014.00 539.56 556.10 556.30 0.000696 4.83 3391.52 322.91 0.21

Reach - 1 48000.0 100-Year 7014.00 539.79 555.76 555.86 0.000459 3.83 5370.30 687.58 0.17
Reach - 1 48000.0 100-yr FW 7014.00 539.79 556.47 556.59 0.000456 3.93 4426.30 400.81 0.17

Reach - 1 48403.2 100-Year 7014.00 539.97 555.92 556.11 0.000720 4.79 3879.54 513.12 0.21
Reach - 1 48403.2 100-yr FW 7014.00 539.97 556.63 556.84 0.000694 4.84 3224.05 299.00 0.21

Reach - 1 49000.0 100-Year 6895.00 540.48 556.36 556.47 0.000464 3.83 5374.08 711.50 0.17
Reach - 1 49000.0 100-yr FW 6895.00 540.48 557.07 557.19 0.000469 3.97 4553.40 452.33 0.17

Reach - 1 49615.9 100-Year 6767.00 540.97 556.65 556.73 0.000405 3.54 5606.73 666.17 0.16
Reach - 1 49615.9 100-yr FW 6767.00 540.97 557.37 557.46 0.000402 3.64 4797.30 429.51 0.16

Reach - 1 50000.0 100-Year 6767.00 541.67 556.81 556.92 0.000534 3.98 4670.22 594.69 0.18
Reach - 1 50000.0 100-yr FW 6767.00 541.67 557.52 557.65 0.000532 4.09 4003.81 384.74 0.18

Reach - 1 50413.2 100-Year 6767.00 541.96 557.04 557.11 0.000398 3.42 5463.95 621.10 0.16
Reach - 1 50413.2 100-yr FW 6767.00 541.96 557.76 557.84 0.000395 3.52 5033.53 493.73 0.16

Reach - 1 51000.0 100-Year 6767.00 542.77 557.25 557.26 0.000170 2.17 10788.74 1411.13 0.10
Reach - 1 51000.0 100-yr FW 6767.00 542.77 557.97 557.99 0.000168 2.24 10024.89 1169.47 0.10

Reach - 1 51500.0 100-Year 6767.00 543.58 557.33 557.35 0.000174 2.13 11372.51 1613.13 0.10
Reach - 1 51500.0 100-yr FW 6767.00 543.58 558.06 558.08 0.000172 2.19 10204.20 1226.67 0.10

Reach - 1 52000.0 100-Year 6767.00 543.81 557.43 557.46 0.000246 2.52 9177.76 1275.79 0.12
Reach - 1 52000.0 100-yr FW 6767.00 543.81 558.15 558.18 0.000244 2.59 8300.68 986.79 0.12

Reach - 1 52552.6 100-Year 6767.00 544.55 557.58 557.63 0.000377 3.02 7203.40 995.00 0.15
Reach - 1 52552.6 100-yr FW 6767.00 544.55 558.30 558.35 0.000375 3.12 6507.88 772.51 0.15

Reach - 1 53000.0 100-Year 6767.00 545.20 557.77 557.90 0.000900 4.56 5203.62 934.50 0.23
Reach - 1 53000.0 100-yr FW 6767.00 545.20 558.48 558.61 0.000787 4.42 4659.01 627.32 0.21

Reach - 1 53500.0 100-Year 6767.00 545.73 558.23 558.39 0.001021 4.84 4524.26 744.63 0.24
Reach - 1 53500.0 100-yr FW 6767.00 545.73 558.89 559.08 0.001035 5.04 3686.96 449.99 0.25

Reach - 1 54000.0 100-Year 6087.00 546.14 558.75 558.93 0.001126 5.08 3389.87 553.77 0.25
Reach - 1 54000.0 100-yr FW 6087.00 546.14 559.40 559.60 0.001045 5.06 2874.69 329.63 0.25

Reach - 1 54500.0 100-Year 6087.00 546.34 559.30 559.51 0.001164 5.26 3134.22 441.95 0.26
Reach - 1 54500.0 100-yr FW 6087.00 546.34 559.92 560.24 0.001397 5.94 2278.97 240.17 0.29
HEC-RAS Plan: DupEffective River: Sandy Creek Reach: Reach - 1 (Continued)
Reach River Ste Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)

Reach - 1 55000.0 100-Year 6087.00 546.52 559.85 559.95 0.000650 4.00 4489.78 553.31 0.19
Reach - 1 55000.0 100-yr FW 6087.00 546.52 560.61 560.88 0.001144 5.51 2639.51 270.00 0.26

Reach - 1 55500.0 100-Year 6087.00 546.69 560.18 560.30 0.000738 4.30 3892.50 590.35 0.21
Reach - 1 55500.0 100-yr FW 6087.00 546.69 561.17 561.27 0.000543 3.87 3956.59 462.00 0.18

Reach - 1 56000.0 100-Year 6087.00 546.83 560.55 560.80 0.001174 5.49 3029.20 537.87 0.26
Reach - 1 56000.0 100-yr FW 6087.00 546.83 561.44 561.66 0.000926 5.08 2823.67 345.23 0.24

Reach - 1 56435.1 100-Year 6087.00 546.83 561.04 561.11 0.000433 3.41 5458.80 899.52 0.16
Reach - 1 56435.1 100-yr FW 6087.00 546.83 561.86 561.96 0.000501 3.81 3931.42 429.00 0.17

Reach - 1 56930.4 100-Year 6087.00 545.83 561.13 555.28 561.85 0.002188 7.52 1345.81 408.59 0.34
Reach - 1 56930.4 100-yr FW 6087.00 545.83 562.02 555.29 562.64 0.001768 7.03 1473.60 143.80 0.31

Reach - 1 56953.6 Bridge

Reach - 1 56976.9 100-Year 6087.00 546.02 561.56 555.48 562.25 0.002051 7.36 1380.41 414.54 0.33
Reach - 1 56976.9 100-yr FW 6087.00 546.02 562.52 555.48 563.11 0.001639 6.85 1518.07 143.80 0.30

Reach - 1 58000.0 100-Year 6087.00 547.62 563.52 563.98 0.001315 6.41 2091.69 258.58 0.28
Reach - 1 58000.0 100-yr FW 6087.00 547.62 564.13 564.60 0.001253 6.42 1809.18 157.20 0.28

Reach - 1 58382.5 100-Year 6087.00 548.25 564.13 564.43 0.001000 5.59 2765.45 345.15 0.25
Reach - 1 58382.5 100-yr FW 6087.00 548.25 564.70 565.04 0.001019 5.77 2168.43 180.18 0.25

Reach - 1 59104.2 100-Year 6087.00 549.41 564.75 564.79 0.000269 2.83 6715.37 709.16 0.13
Reach - 1 59104.2 100-yr FW 6087.00 549.41 565.37 565.42 0.000277 2.95 6123.63 573.33 0.13

Reach - 1 59500.0 100-Year 6087.00 549.66 564.86 564.93 0.000418 3.51 5261.93 594.18 0.16
Reach - 1 59500.0 100-yr FW 6087.00 549.66 565.48 565.57 0.000427 3.64 4752.54 471.54 0.16

Reach - 1 60500.0 100-Year 6087.00 550.64 565.26 565.31 0.000341 3.09 6201.55 708.01 0.14
Reach - 1 60500.0 100-yr FW 6087.00 550.64 565.89 565.95 0.000350 3.22 5473.87 524.11 0.15

Reach - 1 61095.2 100-Year 5443.00 552.56 565.40 565.40 0.000077 1.34 12102.28 1746.95 0.07
Reach - 1 61095.2 100-yr FW 5443.00 552.56 566.04 566.05 0.000080 1.40 9777.85 1081.13 0.07

Reach - 1 61500.0 100-Year 5390.00 553.80 565.43 565.44 0.000097 1.40 11946.94 2003.02 0.07
Reach - 1 61500.0 100-yr FW 5390.00 553.80 566.08 566.09 0.000101 1.49 9286.78 1140.58 0.08

Reach - 1 62000.0 100-Year 5390.00 554.00 565.49 565.51 0.000180 1.89 8536.97 1478.27 0.10
Reach - 1 62000.0 100-yr FW 5390.00 554.00 566.14 566.16 0.000183 1.98 6576.09 778.90 0.10

Reach - 1 62932.3 100-Year 5390.00 554.14 565.73 565.78 0.000499 3.17 4823.78 747.00 0.16
Reach - 1 62932.3 100-yr FW 5390.00 554.14 566.38 566.44 0.000514 3.34 3988.01 473.76 0.17

Reach - 1 63500.0 100-Year 5390.00 554.14 566.06 566.18 0.000958 4.47 3177.05 568.84 0.23
Reach - 1 63500.0 100-yr FW 5390.00 554.14 566.70 566.83 0.000874 4.43 2735.62 344.37 0.22

Reach - 1 64000.0 100-Year 5390.00 554.28 566.56 566.85 0.001655 6.00 2535.02 483.81 0.30
Reach - 1 64000.0 100-yr FW 5390.00 554.28 567.14 567.50 0.001716 6.30 1919.00 232.19 0.31

Reach - 1 64538.0 100-Year 5390.00 554.59 567.22 567.26 0.000395 2.99 6394.61 968.50 0.15
Reach - 1 64538.0 100-yr FW 5390.00 554.59 567.87 567.92 0.000401 3.11 5505.21 675.16 0.15

Reach - 1 64929.4 100-Year 5390.00 555.20 567.39 567.48 0.000714 3.92 4693.52 792.94 0.20
Reach - 1 64929.4 100-yr FW 5390.00 555.20 568.04 568.14 0.000706 4.04 4152.45 570.82 0.20

Reach - 1 65490.6 100-Year 5390.00 555.73 567.77 567.84 0.000565 3.46 4849.48 812.31 0.18
Reach - 1 65490.6 100-yr FW 5390.00 555.73 568.42 568.50 0.000579 3.63 4054.26 530.24 0.18

Reach - 1 65902.4 100-Year 5390.00 556.16 568.02 568.09 0.000684 3.77 4750.56 933.00 0.19
Reach - 1 65902.4 100-yr FW 5390.00 556.16 568.67 568.77 0.000706 3.97 3675.92 489.13 0.20

Reach - 1 66500.0 100-Year 5390.00 556.84 568.49 568.78 0.001790 6.02 2377.94 460.43 0.31
Reach - 1 66500.0 100-yr FW 5390.00 556.84 569.13 569.49 0.001832 6.32 1846.09 237.28 0.32

Reach - 1 67124.9 100-Year 5390.00 558.13 569.41 569.49 0.000746 3.80 3554.64 557.95 0.20
Reach - 1 67124.9 100-yr FW 5390.00 558.13 570.10 570.20 0.000729 3.91 3188.72 415.63 0.20

Reach - 1 67358.4 100-Year 5390.00 559.01 569.48 566.00 570.04 0.002985 7.30 1160.08 537.28 0.41
Reach - 1 67358.4 100-yr FW 5390.00 559.01 570.26 566.00 570.51 0.001451 5.35 1813.30 221.26 0.29

Reach - 1 67378.9 Bridge

Reach - 1 67399.4 100-Year 5390.00 559.28 571.15 566.27 571.27 0.000770 4.05 3267.71 618.22 0.21
Reach - 1 67399.4 100-yr FW 5390.00 559.28 571.77 566.27 571.96 0.000945 4.65 2088.00 221.26 0.24

HEC-RAS Plan: DupEffective River: Sandy Creek Reach: Reach - 1 (Continued)
Reach River Ste Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Reach - 1 67831.4 100-Year 5390.00 558.62 571.49 571.59 0.000714 4.07 3919.34 675.70 0.20
Reach - 1 67831.4 100-yr FW 5390.00 558.62 572.21 572.33 0.000698 4.17 3275.73 404.82 0.20

Reach - 1 68500.0 100-Year 5390.00 557.83 571.97 572.13 0.000862 4.76 3630.04 581.39 0.22
Reach - 1 68500.0 100-yr FW 5390.00 557.83 572.67 572.86 0.000851 4.88 3185.47 414.73 0.22

Reach - 1 69000.0 100-Year 5254.00 558.46 572.40 572.57 0.000876 4.74 3360.51 495.82 0.22
Reach - 1 69000.0 100-yr FW 5254.00 558.46 573.10 573.29 0.000866 4.87 2845.93 313.26 0.23

Reach - 1 69500.0 100-Year 5254.00 559.16 572.85 573.01 0.000899 4.75 3598.78 616.30 0.23
Reach - 1 69500.0 100-yr FW 5254.00 559.16 573.54 573.73 0.000888 4.88 3020.37 377.34 0.23

Reach - 1 70000.0 100-Year 5254.00 559.48 573.30 573.44 0.000816 4.55 3683.66 572.21 0.22
Reach - 1 70000.0 100-yr FW 5254.00 559.48 573.99 574.16 0.000811 4.69 3183.96 395.56 0.22

Reach - 1 70471.3 100-Year 5254.00 560.31 573.70 573.82 0.000767 4.32 3878.41 609.70 0.21
Reach - 1 70471.3 100-yr FW 5254.00 560.31 574.39 574.53 0.000763 4.45 3351.36 423.14 0.21

Reach - 1 71000.0 100-Year 5254.00 560.77 574.08 574.13 0.000463 3.34 5782.70 980.85 0.16
Reach - 1 71000.0 100-yr FW 5254.00 560.77 574.78 574.84 0.000455 3.43 5141.80 705.01 0.16

Reach - 1 71500.0 100-Year 5254.00 560.84 574.30 574.35 0.000404 3.15 6617.14 1175.35 0.15
Reach - 1 71500.0 100-yr FW 5254.00 560.84 575.00 575.06 0.000402 3.24 5879.53 881.49 0.15

Reach - 1 72000.0 100-Year 5254.00 560.91 574.50 574.54 0.000333 2.88 7660.08 1434.62 0.14
Reach - 1 72000.0 100-yr FW 5254.00 560.91 575.20 575.24 0.000331 2.97 6808.35 1070.80 0.14

Reach - 1 72615.8 100-Year 5254.00 561.00 574.73 574.89 0.000898 4.75 4401.52 1028.23 0.23
Reach - 1 72615.8 100-yr FW 5254.00 561.00 575.41 575.60 0.000897 4.91 3595.33 622.31 0.23

Reach - 1 73494.9 100-Year 5254.00 561.01 575.55 575.83 0.001187 5.68 3144.80 743.65 0.26
Reach - 1 73494.9 100-yr FW 5254.00 561.01 576.22 576.56 0.001224 5.94 2647.30 484.61 0.27

Reach - 1 74000.0 100-Year 4913.00 561.03 576.16 576.34 0.000830 4.85 3240.38 583.48 0.22
Reach - 1 74000.0 100-yr FW 4913.00 561.03 576.87 577.08 0.000822 4.98 2684.38 363.66 0.22

Reach - 1 74500.0 100-Year 4913.00 561.30 576.54 576.92 0.001356 6.23 2172.00 381.83 0.28
Reach - 1 74500.0 100-yr FW 4913.00 561.30 577.23 577.67 0.001355 6.41 1795.78 236.31 0.28

Reach - 1 75000.0 100-Year 4913.00 561.16 577.18 577.59 0.001292 6.29 2032.07 336.59 0.28
Reach - 1 75000.0 100-yr FW 4913.00 561.16 577.87 578.33 0.001277 6.43 1811.37 248.89 0.28

Reach - 1 75500.0 100-Year 4913.00 561.03 577.83 578.18 0.001053 5.86 2206.90 368.40 0.25
Reach - 1 75500.0 100-yr FW 4913.00 561.03 578.51 578.92 0.001080 6.10 1901.51 255.00 0.26

Reach - 1 76000.0 100-Year 4913.00 561.08 578.34 578.71 0.001038 5.92 2351.95 413.85 0.25
Reach - 1 76000.0 100-yr FW 4913.00 561.08 579.03 579.45 0.001034 6.07 1921.48 248.00 0.25

Reach - 1 76627.4 100-Year 4913.00 561.05 579.01 579.28 0.000775 5.26 3105.54 613.84 0.22
Reach - 1 76627.4 100-yr FW 4913.00 561.05 579.72 580.02 0.000769 5.38 2614.67 409.00 0.22

Reach - 1 77016.3 100-Year 4913.00 560.77 579.24 567.90 579.69 0.000866 5.46 1136.00 151.75 0.23
Reach - 1 77016.3 100-yr FW 4913.00 560.77 579.96 567.90 580.37 0.000744 5.19 1241.33 146.00 0.21

Reach - 1 77047.8 Bridge

Reach - 1 77079.3 100-Year 4913.00 561.04 579.65 568.18 580.09 0.000841 5.41 1157.44 162.38 0.22
Reach - 1 77079.3 100-yr FW 4913.00 561.04 580.35 568.18 580.75 0.000726 5.15 1258.64 146.00 0.21

Reach - 1 77291.8 100-Year 4913.00 560.89 579.83 568.59 580.29 0.000972 5.58 1285.69 434.07 0.23
Reach - 1 77291.8 100-yr FW 4913.00 560.89 580.51 568.59 580.92 0.000838 5.30 1388.85 184.00 0.21

Reach - 1 77323.3 Bridge

Reach - 1 77354.8 100-Year 4913.00 561.12 580.21 568.82 580.65 0.000940 5.51 1313.93 438.20 0.23
Reach - 1 77354.8 100-yr FW 4913.00 561.12 580.86 568.82 581.26 0.000815 5.25 1411.52 184.00 0.21

Reach - 1 77500.0 100-Year 4913.00 561.19 580.54 580.81 0.000666 5.12 2963.27 518.63 0.21
Reach - 1 77500.0 100-yr FW 4913.00 561.19 581.08 581.40 0.000694 5.33 2371.29 307.24 0.21

Reach - 1 78028.6 100-Year 3939.00 561.03 580.96 581.12 0.000474 4.32 3702.19 808.94 0.17
Reach - 1 78028.6 100-yr FW 3939.00 561.03 581.53 581.72 0.000491 4.48 2709.21 358.80 0.18

Reach - 1 78500.0 100-Year 3659.00 561.13 581.16 581.40 0.000615 4.90 2813.12 646.74 0.19
Reach - 1 78500.0 100-yr FW 3659.00 561.13 581.74 582.01 0.000641 5.10 2267.37 400.08 0.20

Reach - 1 79049.2 100-Year 3659.00 561.06 581.44 581.84 0.000844 5.81 1848.98 402.40 0.23
Reach - 1 79049.2 100-yr FW 3659.00 561.06 582.02 582.47 0.000871 6.01 1462.45 234.63 0.23

Reach - 1 79448.6 100-Year 3659.00 561.09 581.70 582.27 0.001043 6.51 1230.00 239.06 0.25
HEC-RAS Plan: DupEffective River: Sandy Creek Reach: Reach - 1 (Continued)
Reach River Ste Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Reach - 1 79448.6 100-yr FW 3659.00 561.09 582.30 582.88 0.001010 6.53 979.33 107.25 0.25

Reach - 1 80247.7 100-Year 3659.00 561.11 582.63 582.93 0.000631 5.21 2316.20 751.81 0.20
Reach - 1 80247.7 100-yr FW 3659.00 561.11 583.20 583.56 0.000667 5.45 1790.97 449.15 0.21

Reach - 1 80657.6 100-Year 3659.00 573.85 582.82 579.72 583.84 0.004627 8.16 472.77 69.68 0.50
Reach - 1 80657.6 100-yr FW 3659.00 573.85 583.47 579.72 584.35 0.003601 7.57 507.49 61.00 0.44

Reach - 1 80720.6 Culvert

Reach - 1 80783.6 100-Year 3659.00 574.18 585.46 580.05 586.06 0.002010 6.32 640.79 156.32 0.34
Reach - 1 80783.6 100-yr FW 3659.00 574.18 585.68 580.05 586.28 0.001913 6.25 622.19 61.00 0.33

Reach - 1 80868.7 100-Year 3018.00 573.96 585.82 579.00 586.26 0.001367 5.33 565.75 1191.59 0.27
Reach - 1 80868.7 100-yr FW 3018.00 573.96 586.07 579.00 586.50 0.001866 5.22 578.18 48.00 0.27

Reach - 1 80944.7 Culvert

Reach - 1 81020.7 100-Year 3018.00 574.62 586.70 579.67 587.13 0.001284 5.23 576.58 1199.08 0.27
Reach - 1 81020.7 100-yr FW 3018.00 574.62 586.95 579.67 587.36 0.001775 5.13 588.39 48.00 0.26

Reach - 1 81500.0 100-Year 3018.00 575.51 587.52 587.54 0.000356 2.58 4715.03 926.45 0.13
Reach - 1 81500.0 100-yr FW 3018.00 575.51 587.80 587.83 0.000424 2.86 3743.42 597.60 0.15

Reach - 1 81961.8 100-Year 3018.00 576.64 587.72 587.76 0.000638 3.27 3517.23 719.08 0.18
Reach - 1 81961.8 100-yr FW 3018.00 576.64 588.04 588.10 0.000771 3.67 2821.93 484.93 0.19

Reach - 1 82463.9 100-Year 2986.00 577.15 588.08 588.46 0.002991 7.01 1297.24 274.30 0.38
Reach - 1 82463.9 100-yr FW 2986.00 577.15 588.42 588.96 0.003509 7.76 1049.20 190.80 0.41

Reach - 1 83000.0 100-Year 2986.00 578.41 589.43 589.58 0.001475 4.95 2013.65 393.11 0.27
Reach - 1 83000.0 100-yr FW 2986.00 578.41 589.98 590.14 0.001446 5.07 1836.67 304.16 0.27

Reach - 1 83439.5 100-Year 2986.00 579.28 590.03 590.10 0.000940 3.89 3263.32 857.73 0.21
Reach - 1 83439.5 100-yr FW 2986.00 579.28 590.59 590.68 0.001016 4.18 2579.46 511.74 0.22

Reach - 1 83858.7 100-Year 2986.00 580.10 590.42 590.98 0.004377 8.16 1199.66 343.73 0.45
Reach - 1 83858.7 100-yr FW 2986.00 580.10 590.93 591.68 0.004782 8.81 872.37 169.90 0.48

Reach - 1 84435.3 100-Year 2986.00 581.04 592.55 592.92 0.002609 6.79 1453.61 350.74 0.36
Reach - 1 84435.3 100-yr FW 2986.00 581.04 593.26 593.69 0.002604 7.06 1156.32 194.22 0.36

Reach - 1 84929.7 100-Year 2986.00 581.70 593.63 593.75 0.001114 4.54 2430.16 523.13 0.23
Reach - 1 84929.7 100-yr FW 2986.00 581.70 594.38 594.52 0.001089 4.68 2039.77 325.51 0.23

Reach - 1 85554.5 100-Year 2986.00 582.83 594.38 595.21 0.004554 8.98 939.61 243.79 0.47
Reach - 1 85554.5 100-yr FW 2986.00 582.83 595.01 596.02 0.004692 9.45 710.88 128.41 0.48

Reach - 1 86000.0 100-Year 2986.00 583.46 596.21 597.26 0.004350 9.39 679.73 123.87 0.47
Reach - 1 86000.0 100-yr FW 2986.00 583.46 596.87 598.11 0.004396 9.77 517.87 56.69 0.47

Reach - 1 86500.0 100-Year 2986.00 584.76 598.36 598.94 0.002550 7.51 966.84 155.28 0.36
Reach - 1 86500.0 100-yr FW 2986.00 584.76 599.14 599.79 0.002498 7.72 817.41 93.14 0.36

Reach - 1 87000.0 100-Year 2986.00 590.39 600.10 601.00 0.006784 9.73 833.55 209.41 0.56
Reach - 1 87000.0 100-yr FW 2986.00 590.39 600.77 601.84 0.006657 10.09 649.68 109.69 0.56

Reach - 1 87448.6 100-Year 2986.00 591.07 602.63 603.47 0.004547 8.99 850.08 182.60 0.47
Reach - 1 87448.6 100-yr FW 2986.00 591.07 603.30 604.31 0.004602 9.39 655.32 93.24 0.48

Reach - 1 87724.3 100-Year 2986.00 591.30 603.79 597.72 604.33 0.001897 6.20 701.13 159.14 0.31
Reach - 1 87724.3 100-yr FW 2986.00 591.30 604.68 597.72 605.13 0.001454 5.69 790.48 100.00 0.28

Reach - 1 87747.3 Bridge

Reach - 1 87770.3 100-Year 2986.00 591.53 604.30 597.95 604.81 0.001732 6.02 729.16 161.36 0.30
Reach - 1 87770.3 100-yr FW 2986.00 591.53 605.13 597.95 605.56 0.001364 5.57 812.27 100.00 0.27

Reach - 1 88037.4 100-Year 2986.00 591.71 604.80 605.56 0.003338 8.37 869.05 164.61 0.41
Reach - 1 88037.4 100-yr FW 2986.00 591.71 605.44 606.35 0.003396 8.73 672.81 81.73 0.42

Reach - 1 88500.0 100-Year 2986.00 592.37 606.13 606.21 0.000661 3.86 2876.56 528.78 0.18
Reach - 1 88500.0 100-yr FW 2986.00 592.37 606.91 607.00 0.000642 3.94 2426.73 329.78 0.18

Reach - 1 88827.1 100-Year 2986.00 593.17 606.36 606.51 0.001128 4.89 2323.86 526.67 0.24
Reach - 1 88827.1 100-yr FW 2986.00 593.17 607.12 607.30 0.001099 5.02 1916.91 315.83 0.24

Reach - 1 89500.0 100-Year 2112.00 595.27 607.18 607.29 0.001178 4.48 1916.47 512.81 0.23
Reach - 1 89500.0 100-yr FW 2112.00 595.27 607.92 608.06 0.001148 4.61 1635.27 340.60 0.23

HEC-RAS Plan: DupEffective River: Sandy Creek Reach: Reach - 1 (Continued)
Reach River Ste Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Reach - 1 90000.0 100-Year 2112.00 596.58 607.86 608.09 0.002074 5.73 1445.35 445.42 0.31
Reach - 1 90000.0 100-yr FW 2112.00 596.58 608.57 608.81 0.001888 5.70 1149.40 224.25 0.29

Reach - 1 90402.9 100-Year 2112.00 597.85 608.77 609.12 0.002957 6.69 1009.36 347.71 0.36
Reach - 1 90402.9 100-yr FW 2112.00 597.85 609.38 609.83 0.003084 7.09 659.95 108.88 0.37

Reach - 1 91000.0 100-Year 2112.00 599.74 610.73 611.98 0.006969 10.32 650.20 411.17 0.56
Reach - 1 91000.0 100-yr FW 2112.00 599.74 611.35 612.67 0.006467 10.33 443.51 122.10 0.54

Reach - 1 91551.1 100-Year 2112.00 601.44 613.70 614.00 0.002093 6.10 1189.55 330.15 0.31
Reach - 1 91551.1 100-yr FW 2112.00 601.44 614.32 614.68 0.002164 6.41 804.79 123.82 0.32

Reach - 1 92115.3 100-Year 2112.00 603.02 615.00 615.59 0.003504 7.77 800.21 214.30 0.40
Reach - 1 92115.3 100-yr FW 2112.00 603.02 615.62 616.34 0.003604 8.15 580.14 87.31 0.41

Reach - 1 92776.6 100-Year 2112.00 604.60 617.27 618.03 0.003726 8.32 651.67 154.32 0.42
Reach - 1 92776.6 100-yr FW 2112.00 604.60 617.92 618.76 0.003606 8.47 507.43 71.95 0.41

Reach - 1 93554.4 100-Year 2112.00 606.59 619.62 619.84 0.001509 5.39 1418.98 348.21 0.27
Reach - 1 93554.4 100-yr FW 2112.00 606.59 620.30 620.56 0.001522 5.61 1140.19 200.32 0.27

Reach - 1 94000.0 100-Year 2112.00 608.30 620.37 620.77 0.002649 6.78 1025.91 272.68 0.35
Reach - 1 94000.0 100-yr FW 2112.00 608.30 621.03 621.51 0.002690 7.09 769.09 132.24 0.35

Reach - 1 94444.3 100-Year 2112.00 608.88 621.45 621.64 0.001468 5.20 1536.77 409.83 0.26
Reach - 1 94444.3 100-yr FW 2112.00 608.88 622.17 622.40 0.001456 5.38 1214.72 218.64 0.26

Reach - 1 94872.0 100-Year 1580.00 611.15 622.23 622.61 0.004035 7.28 790.96 268.16 0.39
Reach - 1 94872.0 100-yr FW 1580.00 611.15 622.90 623.38 0.004085 7.63 565.70 109.21 0.40

Reach - 1 95500.0 100-Year 1580.00 614.30 625.25 627.14 0.012101 12.51 271.50 74.12 0.68
Reach - 1 95500.0 100-yr FW 1580.00 614.30 625.79 628.08 0.012481 13.13 197.88 27.44 0.70

Reach - 1 95953.5 100-Year 1580.00 614.84 628.38 628.49 0.001095 4.36 1293.04 267.08 0.21
Reach - 1 95953.5 100-yr FW 1580.00 614.84 629.29 629.40 0.001009 4.38 1100.16 154.84 0.21

Reach - 1 96500.0 100-Year 1580.00 617.36 629.14 629.70 0.004558 8.08 628.08 188.65 0.42
Reach - 1 96500.0 100-yr FW 1580.00 617.36 629.92 630.58 0.004428 8.32 452.29 67.51 0.42

Reach - 1 97000.0 100-Year 1580.00 622.97 632.21 633.20 0.010933 10.56 389.98 93.96 0.63
Reach - 1 97000.0 100-yr FW 1580.00 622.97 632.85 634.05 0.010965 11.08 328.19 59.42 0.64

Reach - 1 97354.5 100-Year 1580.00 624.88 634.29 629.64 634.79 0.002112 5.70 309.40 45.98 0.33
Reach - 1 97354.5 100-yr FW 1580.00 624.88 635.06 629.64 635.48 0.001603 5.24 340.90 41.67 0.29

Reach - 1 97390.5 Bridge

Reach - 1 97426.5 100-Year 1580.00 628.43 638.00 633.19 638.48 0.001988 5.59 319.09 46.50 0.32
Reach - 1 97426.5 100-yr FW 1580.00 628.43 638.73 633.19 639.14 0.001540 5.18 345.75 41.67 0.29

Reach - 1 98110.3 100-Year 1580.00 631.06 640.13 642.85 0.023262 15.13 213.52 59.93 0.91
Reach - 1 98110.3 100-yr FW 1580.00 631.06 640.28 642.81 0.021188 14.61 190.33 30.20 0.87

Reach - 1 98557.0 100-Year 1580.00 632.25 645.65 646.16 0.003262 7.47 560.30 111.94 0.37
Reach - 1 98557.0 100-yr FW 1580.00 632.25 645.72 646.40 0.003896 8.19 409.61 46.94 0.40

Reach - 1 99000.0 100-Year 1580.00 636.12 647.39 648.04 0.005447 8.56 484.68 106.41 0.46
Reach - 1 99000.0 100-yr FW 1580.00 636.12 647.74 648.59 0.006115 9.26 353.44 43.21 0.49

Reach - 1 99500.0 100-Year 1580.00 638.70 650.09 650.75 0.005408 8.59 497.77 117.63 0.46
Reach - 1 99500.0 100-yr FW 1580.00 638.70 650.70 651.51 0.005587 9.06 382.35 53.80 0.47

Reach - 1 99979.0 100-Year 1580.00 641.90 652.75 653.22 0.004866 7.88 712.60 237.96 0.43
Reach - 1 99979.0 100-yr FW 1580.00 641.90 653.44 654.03 0.004877 8.24 489.30 86.50 0.44

Reach - 1 100433.7 100-Year 1580.00 644.71 655.24 656.13 0.007898 9.83 542.76 242.25 0.55
Reach - 1 100433.7 100-yr FW 1580.00 644.71 655.88 657.00 0.008086 10.37 326.77 54.25 0.56

Reach - 1 101000.0 100-Year 1580.00 648.53 659.45 660.24 0.006665 9.26 424.00 86.69 0.51
Reach - 1 101000.0 100-yr FW 1580.00 648.53 660.19 661.14 0.006572 9.63 342.47 42.20 0.51

Reach - 1 101461.4 100-Year 1580.00 653.02 663.00 664.16 0.010486 10.91 368.11 95.38 0.62
Reach - 1 101461.4 100-yr FW 1580.00 653.02 663.65 665.10 0.010688 11.51 269.73 37.41 0.64

Reach - 1 101913.0 100-Year 1580.00 655.59 666.69 667.12 0.004306 7.53 833.80 329.33 0.41
Reach - 1 101913.0 100-yr FW 1580.00 655.59 667.51 668.01 0.004072 7.70 553.67 103.29 0.40

Reach - 1 102576.5 100-Year 1302.00 661.95 670.14 670.32 0.005479 6.35 911.76 453.53 0.41
Reach - 1 102576.5 100-yr FW 1302.00 661.95 670.83 671.04 0.005213 6.56 707.01 229.56 0.40

HEC-RAS Plan: DupEffective River: Sandy Creek Reach: Reach - 1 (Continued)
Reach River Ste Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Reach - 1 102813.4 100-Year 1302.00 664.74 671.96 671.96 673.92 0.016830 11.84 149.19 83.28 0.79
Reach - 1 102813.4 100-yr FW 1302.00 664.74 672.00 671.64 673.93 0.016504 11.77 144.95 34.00 0.78

Reach - 1 102839.1 Bridge

Reach - 1 102864.9 100-Year 1302.00 664.96 674.57 672.17 675.25 0.004559 7.49 259.11 182.77 0.43
Reach - 1 102864.9 100-yr FW 1302.00 664.96 674.63 671.86 675.48 0.005252 8.08 227.15 34.00 0.46

Reach - 1 103000.0 100-Year 1302.00 663.88 675.41 675.99 0.005915 8.43 386.27 98.39 0.45
Reach - 1 103000.0 100-yr FW 1302.00 663.88 675.71 676.29 0.005527 8.29 338.05 55.00 0.44

Reach - 1 103500.0 100-Year 1302.00 670.38 679.47 680.33 0.013303 10.62 368.67 121.20 0.64
Reach - 1 103500.0 100-yr FW 1302.00 670.38 679.60 680.60 0.014162 11.07 285.30 60.00 0.67

Reach - 1 103974.4 100-Year 1302.00 674.12 683.43 683.60 0.004070 5.97 727.27 204.45 0.36
Reach - 1 103974.4 100-yr FW 1302.00 674.12 683.76 683.96 0.004087 6.14 650.58 149.47 0.36

Reach - 1 104500.0 100-Year 1023.00 676.79 686.10 686.34 0.007423 7.10 462.56 146.05 0.43
Reach - 1 104500.0 100-yr FW 1023.00 676.79 686.54 686.90 0.008727 7.96 359.70 82.74 0.47

Reach - 1 105000.0 100-Year 1023.00 679.37 689.42 689.66 0.005937 6.77 490.32 158.33 0.40
Reach - 1 105000.0 100-yr FW 1023.00 679.37 690.15 690.45 0.005858 7.08 369.82 63.56 0.40

Reach - 1 105500.0 100-Year 1023.00 682.17 691.64 691.72 0.002986 4.59 776.40 249.81 0.28
Reach - 1 105500.0 100-yr FW 1023.00 682.17 692.37 692.48 0.002933 4.81 567.79 101.89 0.28

Reach - 1 106000.0 100-Year 999.00 687.86 694.10 694.23 0.010210 6.01 449.00 188.23 0.46
Reach - 1 106000.0 100-yr FW 999.00 687.86 694.79 694.98 0.010306 6.56 352.38 98.93 0.48

Reach - 1 106500.0 100-Year 999.00 689.23 697.14 697.20 0.003876 4.49 688.61 272.02 0.30
Reach - 1 106500.0 100-yr FW 999.00 689.23 697.86 697.95 0.003819 4.77 518.93 124.70 0.30

Reach - 1 107000.0 100-Year 999.00 690.66 699.51 699.69 0.006439 6.26 434.54 196.36 0.39
Reach - 1 107000.0 100-yr FW 999.00 690.66 700.17 700.41 0.006325 6.54 333.75 91.00 0.40

Reach - 1 107561.4 100-Year 426.00 697.28 704.09 703.14 704.18 0.014801 3.57 193.26 113.52 0.27
Reach - 1 107561.4 100-yr FW 426.00 697.28 704.74 704.87 0.015295 3.90 152.54 51.87 0.28

Reach - 1 108028.8 100-Year 426.00 706.43 713.49 713.73 0.029670 5.20 108.53 55.99 0.38
Reach - 1 108028.8 100-yr FW 426.00 706.43 713.80 714.13 0.026296 5.07 93.25 30.73 0.36

Reach - 1 108500.0 100-Year 426.00 712.80 719.72 717.92 719.78 0.007088 2.50 219.94 96.52 0.18
Reach - 1 108500.0 100-yr FW 426.00 712.80 720.52 720.64 0.008450 2.98 158.47 39.97 0.21

Reach - 1 109053.5 100-Year 426.00 724.75 730.42 730.42 731.15 0.138465 9.37 66.23 46.35 0.78
Reach - 1 109053.5 100-yr FW 426.00 724.75 731.14 730.84 732.19 0.101530 8.87 54.38 19.11 0.69
HEC-RAS Plan: Corrected River: SandyCreekTribut Reach: Reach - 1
Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ftlft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Reach - 1 325.6 100-Year 2014.00 549.07 555.39 553.03 555.48 0.001701 4.07 1286.20 368.54 0.31
Reach - 1 325.6 100-Year FW 2014.00 549.07 556.32 553.39 556.49 0.001897 4.78 895.20 170.60 0.33

Reach - 1 660 100-Year 2014.00 549.80 555.96 556.02 0.001507 3.62 1362.69 359.00 0.29
Reach - 1 660 100-Year FW 2014.00 549.80 556.92 556.99 0.001167 3.58 1270.58 250.00 0.26

Reach - 1 975 100-Year 2014.00 549.97 556.48 556.64 0.002347 4.54 1096.56 389.03 0.36
Reach - 1 975 100-Year FW 2014.00 549.97 557.30 557.48 0.001847 4.47 859.86 177.22 0.33

Reach - 1 1000.0 100-Year 2014.00 549.97 556.54 556.69 0.002214 4.45 1121.71 392.19 0.35
Reach - 1 1000.0 100-Year FW 2014.00 549.97 557.35 557.52 0.001790 4.43 868.59 177.22 0.32

Reach - 1 1220 100-Year 2014.00 549.70 556.97 557.05 0.001209 3.48 1470.42 446.58 0.26
Reach - 1 1220 100-Year FW 2014.00 549.70 557.73 557.84 0.001160 3.72 1084.85 210.00 0.26

Reach - 1 1500.0 100-Year 2014.00 550.05 557.38 557.50 0.002081 4.55 1167.88 338.31 0.34
Reach - 1 1500.0 100-Year FW 2014.00 550.05 558.13 558.26 0.001957 4.36 971.79 203.36 0.31

Reach - 1 1952.9 100-Year 2014.00 551.64 558.40 558.63 0.002848 5.39 1094.07 352.12 0.41
Reach - 1 1952.9 100-Year FW 2014.00 551.64 559.05 559.33 0.002645 5.59 866.32 192.89 0.40

Reach - 1 2392.9 100-Year 2014.00 552.13 559.49 559.55 0.001567 4.09 1925.43 616.64 0.27
Reach - 1 2392.9 100-Year FW 2014.00 552.13 560.14 560.22 0.001503 4.25 1646.20 401.52 0.27

Reach - 1 3000.0 100-Year 2014.00 553.42 560.55 560.64 0.002030 4.56 1708.96 560.40 0.31
Reach - 1 3000.0 100-Year FW 2014.00 553.42 561.19 561.29 0.002083 4.90 1469.34 400.11 0.32

Reach - 1 3422.7 100-Year 2014.00 554.14 561.65 561.94 0.004652 7.15 1144.76 474.34 0.47
Reach - 1 3422.7 100-Year FW 2014.00 554.14 562.27 562.67 0.004906 7.75 844.13 238.49 0.49

Reach - 1 4000.0 100-Year 2014.00 554.41 563.60 563.93 0.002619 6.95 1069.61 338.32 0.41
Reach - 1 4000.0 100-Year FW 2014.00 554.41 564.28 564.71 0.002639 7.33 752.35 138.31 0.42

Reach - 1 4593.3 100-Year 1830.00 556.17 565.27 565.65 0.003197 7.42 953.91 420.04 0.44
Reach - 1 4593.3 100-Year FW 1830.00 556.17 565.96 566.44 0.003219 7.83 619.37 128.64 0.45

Reach - 1 5000.0 100-Year 1830.00 556.51 566.45 566.74 0.002263 6.63 1069.45 379.94 0.38
Reach - 1 5000.0 100-Year FW 1830.00 556.51 567.17 567.54 0.002238 6.92 716.07 130.92 0.38

Reach - 1 5405.7 100-Year 1830.00 557.95 567.43 568.10 0.004411 8.96 649.20 241.12 0.52
Reach - 1 5405.7 100-Year FW 1830.00 557.95 568.07 568.94 0.004540 9.51 445.18 90.18 0.54

Reach - 1 5987.5 100-Year 1830.00 561.47 569.69 569.92 0.002219 6.40 1276.25 442.20 0.40
Reach - 1 5987.5 100-Year FW 1830.00 561.47 570.38 570.59 0.001804 6.10 1089.80 237.01 0.36

Reach - 1 6447.7 100-Year 1830.00 564.17 572.90 572.90 574.08 0.010024 12.14 604.08 267.62 0.74
Reach - 1 6447.7 100-Year FW 1830.00 564.17 573.81 573.81 577.69 0.018010 17.45 182.94 26.00 1.02
HEC-RAS Plan: Proposed River: SandyCreekTribut Reach: Reach - 1
Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Val Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Reach - 1 325.6 100-Year 2014.00 549.07 555.39 553.03 555.48 0.001701 4.07 1286.20 368.54 0.31
Reach - 1 325.6 100-Year FW 2014.00 549.07 556.32 553.39 556.49 0.001897 4.78 895.20 170.60 0.33

Reach - 1 660 100-Year 2014.00 549.80 555.96 556.02 0.001507 3.62 1362.69 359.00 0.29
Reach - 1 660 100-Year FW 2014.00 549.80 556.92 556.99 0.001167 3.58 1270.58 250.00 0.26

Reach - 1 975 100-Year 2014.00 549.97 556.48 556.64 0.002347 4.54 1096.56 389.03 0.36
Reach - 1 975 100-Year FW 2014.00 549.97 557.30 557.48 0.001847 4.47 859.86 177.22 0.33

Reach - 1 987 Culvert

Reach - 1 1000.0 100-Year 2014.00 549.97 556.48 554.61 556.64 0.002340 4.54 1097.72 389.18 0.36
Reach - 1 1000.0 100-Year FW 2014.00 549.97 557.34 554.62 557.52 0.001796 4.43 867.73 177.22 0.32

Reach - 1 1220 100-Year 2014.00 549.70 556.93 557.01 0.001251 3.52 1452.77 445.82 0.27
Reach - 1 1220 100-Year FW 2014.00 549.70 557.73 557.84 0.001163 3.72 1084.11 210.00 0.26

Reach - 1 1500.0 100-Year 2014.00 550.05 557.35 557.48 0.002126 4.58 1158.87 337.53 0.34
Reach - 1 1500.0 100-Year FW 2014.00 550.05 558.13 558.26 0.001960 4.37 971.23 203.36 0.31

Reach - 1 1952.9 100-Year 2014.00 551.64 558.39 558.62 0.002871 5.40 1090.69 351.86 0.41
Reach - 1 1952.9 100-Year FW 2014.00 551.64 559.05 559.33 0.002647 5.59 866.06 192.89 0.40

Reach - 1 2392.9 100-Year 2014.00 552.13 559.49 559.55 0.001572 4.10 1923.32 616.51 0.27
Reach - 1 2392.9 100-Year FW 2014.00 552.13 560.14 560.21 0.001504 4.25 1645.93 401.52 0.27

Reach - 1 3000.0 100-Year 2014.00 553.42 560.55 560.63 0.002031 4.56 1708.44 560.39 0.31
Reach - 1 3000.0 100-Year FW 2014.00 553.42 561.18 561.29 0.002083 4.90 1469.24 400.11 0.32

Reach - 1 3422.7 100-Year 2014.00 554.14 561.65 561.94 0.004653 7.15 1144.71 474.34 0.47
Reach - 1 3422.7 100-Year FW 2014.00 554.14 562.27 562.67 0.004907 7.75 844.12 238.49 0.49

Reach - 1 4000.0 100-Year 2014.00 554.41 563.60 563.93 0.002619 6.95 1069.63 338.32 0.41
Reach - 1 4000.0 100-Year FW 2014.00 554.41 564.28 564.71 0.002639 7.33 752.35 138.31 0.42

Reach - 1 4593.3 100-Year 1830.00 556.17 565.27 565.65 0.003197 7.42 953.94 420.04 0.44
Reach - 1 4593.3 100-Year FW 1830.00 556.17 565.96 566.44 0.003219 7.83 619.37 128.64 0.45

Reach - 1 5000.0 100-Year 1830.00 556.51 566.45 566.74 0.002263 6.63 1069.45 379.94 0.38
Reach - 1 5000.0 100-Year FW 1830.00 556.51 567.17 567.54 0.002238 6.92 716.07 130.92 0.38

Reach - 1 5405.7 100-Year 1830.00 557.95 567.43 568.10 0.004411 8.96 649.20 241.12 0.52
Reach - 1 5405.7 100-Year FW 1830.00 557.95 568.07 568.94 0.004540 9.51 445.18 90.18 0.54

Reach - 1 5987.5 100-Year 1830.00 561.47 569.69 569.92 0.002219 6.40 1276.25 442.20 0.40
Reach - 1 5987.5 100-Year FW 1830.00 561.47 570.38 570.59 0.001804 6.10 1089.80 237.01 0.36

Reach - 1 6447.7 100-Year 1830.00 564.17 572.90 572.90 574.08 0.010016 12.13 604.32 267.65 0.74
Reach - 1 6447.7 100-Year FW 1830.00 564.17 573.81 573.81 577.69 0.018010 17.45 182.94 26.00 1.02
Appendix II
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
r?
co Stem
En l??ll'
E eI eii
r•Rxlt:RAM
EEP F loodplain requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain Mapping
prograrn and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be tilled fifr all EEP projects. The fonn is
intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of the projects. The
ibrm should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Adininistrator with three copies submitted to
NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping, Unit (attn. John Gerber) and NC" Ecosystem
EnhanCCmL'nt Program.
Projc°ct Location
Name of projLYt: Charles Williams Strcanl_ Wetland and Buffer Site
Name if stream or feature: Sandy Creek and
Sandy Creek Tributary I
County: Randolph, NC
Name of river basin: Cape Fcar River Basin
Is project urban or rural?
Name of Jurisdictional
mun is i pa l itylc:ou nt y : Rural
Randolph County Unincorporated Areas, NC
DFIRM panel number liar
entire site. 87475.1
Consultant name: Ecological Engineering, I.I.P
Phone number: [phone]
Address: 1211 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Uwillia nis FFMA Conipliance_UP Checklist Page 1 44
Design Information
Provide a general description ol'project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a reference
orlhophotov,lraph at a scale of' I " = 500".
Summarize slrca m reaches or wetland arras according to their restoration priority.
peach Length Priority
E.Aample Reach r} 1000 One (Restoration)
Sandy Creek Tributary 1 1974.4 H. Enhancement
Sandy Creck Approximately 2500 fi. Riparian Buifcr Enhancement
Floodplain Information
Is project Iocaled in a Special Flood hazard Area (SFIIA)?
IvYes F No
If project is located in a SFI IA, check how it wits determined:
r Redelineation
* Detailed Study
F?Ln cited Detail Study
l- Approximate Study
IDon't know
List flood zone
Check if'apphes:
FVAE Zonc
F loodway
FVN on-Encroaclutnent
F None
1- A Zane
I- Local Setbacks Rcguircd
I No Local Setbacks Required
IC local setbacks arc rewired, list how many feet: N/A
C"wiili.imti FNMA C'ornPliance EEP Checklitit Page 2 OA
Does proposed channel boundary en. mch outside 11(iodway/non-enc:rcrachrnerii/setl?ac ks?
1` Yes I?JN o
Land Acquisition (Check)
F State awned (tee simple)
f/Conservation casment (Desiol Bid Budd)
F onservation Casement (FLdI Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state:-owned, then all rcquircmcnts should he addressed to the Department
ofAdminisiration. State Construction () Mice (attn .- I lerbert Neily. [phone] )
Is commun. ylcounty participating in the NFIV program?
Yes F No
Note- it'community is nol participating, then all rcquirements should be addressed to NFIP (attn.- Fdward
Curtis. [phone] x369)
Name ot'Local Floodplain Administrator: Randle Brim
Phone Numher. (336) 2118-45 51
Floodplain Requirements
This section to he filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LI'PA
F No Actin
Fj- No Risc t?
F etter of Map Rcvison
F Comlitional Letter of Map Revi`sinn (CLOMR)
F Other Requirements
Lisl other rccluircments:
Cornmenls:
Name: f,"45- LS
Title: -Ft.4gri rm-
Signatur
Da te: 711" 1 0 4
CwilIiams FLMA Compliance FLP Check Iis[ Page 3 ofa
Criteria for Flooding Requirements
Grading= I- than Sac
Noilk I.1'11A
Not ReRuhited, No f;nn,rllu1111?'
, .
tict hacks Cr dH-1 ; I I I V c Nr, Impact Study
rh:;„ 5 uc: 1.(MM if:
Site 1'."Fabl,sh rlfi KI-sc ` I II
1! /C m,munin, BI-I: data- CLUMIt & LOM11 if:
I7c finrtl R,sc > I fr
tit'I-hacI.,
ltcgu 1a Ted
l:S1 1 1:4)
M l.. clrfincLl
Nc, I'loodwav
(I It N,i-Rh['i
Hoodwnv defined
fl) II No Risc)
Noon I'ncroachsrtcnt
Area (1) fl Ne, Rise
No Impact tinny
C:LONIR. 7 d 3MR if Rise not met
LMI R, d Rlsc e 0. 1 Ir
Summaw of ` WINIHOS
Zone `FHA BFE loodway Comm. 1 10OLII-1Iail1 Critk'T'M
(map) Or No rt- ct-hark
Encroachmeni
,B,C No No No No 1. Notify Flllodplaln AClmrnistrltlt}]1
L?. FP Dev. Permit may1 required
Yes NO No No 1. II f;1-13ili11 , < 5 it , notif.v LFPA.
A Yes No Not es ?. if No-Rise = 0 ft, 1-01%41) rlr,t 1-CCIL,irt'd
?. Ii Rise > 0 Ft, LOMB is Required
c. If Rise > l ft, CLONIR is required
AE, es es No /a a. No-Rise StLICIV
AI-A30 b. CLONI R It- } I IL
c. LON1I:
EFW es es es /a a. No-kise `_?tUdV
Al-A30 b. CLOMR if > 0 ft
LOM R
['williamv C FMA Compliance-FU Checklist Page 4 of 4
pR rr ?." ?.1r4 r It • ?,- .'? ? w ? 1 ? 54 a
, . .. ?? ? ? ? .? ? ? . [ Sri ? 1r?• "#. 5 .;? ? • .a
pip
r f
$ 1?
i ' "?{ i • "t[ P 'i. ' +3.'SFJ401if Aa rk 1 ? fi'FL 4 l ?1 li•
?JE1,'I I JlI 5 * +
#r,
A&PAW 'A
' R S » a r
x t. T .
741 ?4
?? r` r;°?_ ,r/..ryr .. •s?w .r?t'•a °r. 3?I?R. wr .?•.?,?-
• ? ? y 1. '" • • i • 1. ? ? yb ., '6 r i T ?. S?R? a ,p__ 'T .y .
4k.
i. *,3
ii, 1.9 r !7
.f ,' f `? •Il t-¢ 1. T !Jf' -.r ?+ 4..y ,.p µ r Y'.. .f ., 4 1? l ?}• 1
Ecological Engineering, LLP has entered into an open services design contract with the NC aepartn-ient
1j of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program via Sungate Design Group,
#• ' P.A. to provide designs and construction management for stream restoration and wetland and buffer
enhancement within the upper Cape Fear River Basin. The Site is situated approximately four miles
west southwest of the Town Limits of Liberty in Randolph County, North Carolina. Ecological
Engineering proposes to enhance a total of 1,748 linear feet of stream channel along the UT. No
r `« r stream restoration or enhancement is proposed along Sandy Creek- Wetland enhancement will occur
within the two existing jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to the UT- Riparian buffer enhancement is
proposed along Sandy Creek and areas outside of the buffer required for stream restoration and
wetland enhancement along the UT. Wetland enhancement acreages cover 1.96 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands and 8.05 acres of riparian buffer, although only 4.7 acres will be available for credit release
per the existing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EEP and the resource agencies. Sandy
Creek is in a FEMA limited detailed study.
.11 HY Fcalogical Engineering, !_LP f N
128 Raleigh Street CL7?L71C Charles Williams Site
Holly Springs, NC 27540 ?frleerln EEP# ?-060355
[phone] PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP
Prepared For NCEEP Randolph County, NC
2728 Capital Boulevard
Suite 1H 163", 'tf04?IC'lll
Raleigh, NC 27864 February 18, 2009
source USG5 Or+adran°yle Maps (Grays Chapel Quad) 1 inch equals 500 feet
Appendix 12
Categorical Exclusion and Supporting Documentation
Appendix A+
Categorical Exclusion Farm for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program PrOjects
Version 1.4
Note: 00y Appendix A shouId to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) GIs the
environmental dor-uniont..
Par t 1
General Project Inform ation
.
A?
Project Narr?e: -'AH?[.,.. 'I1 Ar:'';!-I?:.,W+%'VI, .^:T'..79, 'r
County Name: MNJVL1'HCC UNTY
EEP Number: M8035S
Project Sponsor: ECOLOGIC AL ENG I NEERI N G. L LP
Project Contact Name: C. r.AHE? SAULSJR
Project Contact Address: 12$RALt!rHSTFEE1.HOLLY IRING$.NC 771A,1
Project Contact E-mail: IA"FSf-_151K(•@C.)ugicalengrepring.ne"
EEP Project Marra er. -•LLL"JiF .L L1: F.
Project i • •
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By-.

Date EE?P Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
pate ?_ For Division Administrator
FHWA
Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By.

Date For Division Administrator
FHA
Version 1.4, 8118/05
Coastal Zone Manaaement Act (CZMAf
1. Is the project bcated in a LAMA county? ? Yes
No
2_ Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a LAMA Area of ? Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? No
t N.--A
3, Has a LAMA permit been secured? ? Yes
? No

4_ Has N DCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management ? Yes
Program? ? No
1 N/A
Comprehensive Environmental fees nse Compensation and Liability Act RCLAI
1. Is this a "full-delivery" pro;ert % ? Yes
? No
7_ Has the zoning1land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been Yes
designated as commercial or industrial? ? No
NIA
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ? No
® NIA
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ? No
NIA
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous H Yes
waste sites within the project area? ? No
NIA
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan' Yes
? No
N1A
National Historic Preservation Acct Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on. the National Register of Yes
Historic Places in the project area? No
. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO(THPO concur? Yes
? No
E NIA
3. If the effects are adverse" have they been resolved? Yes
No
? NIA
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Beal Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform Act
1. Is ihis a Jull-de I i very- project? Yes
No
-
-
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? es
17
y
? No
I N1A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
? No
0 N/A
4_ Has the owner of the property been informed; ? Yes
prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and E] No
what the fair market value is believed to be? r NIA
Version 1.4, 8}18105
Part 3: c
Ftegulation/Question p.
American Indian Relictio[ s Freedom Art (A€f FA)
Is Is trio projec located w 3 vcaunLy (.!<IiMed a ; -"e ,to'_,'. tt-r- Eastor-7 Bard of ? Yes
Cherokee Indians? E] No
2. Is the site of religiouq irnpvrlance tv American Indians? Yes
No
? NIA
3, fa the project listed on, or eligible for fisting on, the National Register of Historic Yes
Places? No
? N/A
4_ Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
? No

_ NIA
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? YeS
No
2. Vllill there be loss or destruction of hiMric or prehir>Wic ruins, monuments or objects Yes
of antiquity"? ? No
El N/A
_ Wilf a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required"? ? Yes
LJ No
E NIA
4. Has a permit been obtained? ? Yes
a No
NIA
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian ands Jreservation}"? Yes
No
2, Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
0 No
r NIA
3. Will a permit from the appropriate FederaJ agency be required? Yes
a No
NIA
4_ Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
NA
Endan Bred Species Act ESA
1_ Are federal Threatened and Endangered species andJor Designated Critical Habitat Yes
listed for the county? ? No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or Suitable habitat: present for listed species? Yes
No
NIA
. Are T&E species present pr is the project being conducted in Designated Critical Yes
Habitat? ? No
NJA
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species andlor "likely to adversely modify" Yes
De igneted Critical Habitat? Q
.1 No
NIA
5. Does the U FUV INOAA-f=isheries concur in the effects determination? ? Yes
No
fi NIA
6. Has the USFW INOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
[J Yes
No
! NIA
8 Version 1.4, 8118/0
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
fi. Is the project located on Federal lands that are Within a county claimed as "territory" Yes
b the EBCI? No
. Has the ESCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed Yes
project? ? No
MA
, Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred ? Yes
sites? [] No
J NA
Farmland Protection Polio Act FPPA
1. Will reel estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NR CS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally Yes
important farmland? ? No
N/A
3. Has the completed Perm AD-1 006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
J No
N1A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1_'JrJrll the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise controllmodity any Yes
water bod No
2_ Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been [ cQn5cllted? r Yes
? No
? NIA
_
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section
1. Will the project rer a re the ronvt?'sion c)f y-ctzti ;)rape-1y 'c; a use other than public, Yep
outdoor recreation? { No
2_ Has the NPS approved of The conversion? Yes
? No
r N/A
Ma nuson- to vens Fishe Conservntion and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
1, Is the project located in an estuarine systern? ? Yes
Q No
2, Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
? No
. NiA
3_ Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the Yes
project on EFH? ? No
N/A
4- Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
[] No
N1A
5, Has ccan5ultation with NCAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
© No

? ? NIA
Migratory Bird Tree Act MRTA
1. Dre5 the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA7 Yes
/ No
2, Have the 1J FWS recommendations been incorporated? ? Yes
? No
? NJA
Wilderness Act
1_ is the project in a Wilderness area? ® Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit andfor easement been obtained from the maintaining Yes
federal agency? ? No
N/A
Version 1,4, 8/18105
D North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission P
22 April 2008
Mr. Lane Sauls
Sungate Design Group, P.A.
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Subject: EEP Stream Mitigation Project (Charles Williams Site), Randolph County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Sauls:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
document. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat_ 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S_ 113-131 et sect.).
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program has identified a potential stream, wetland,
and buffer restoration and enhancement project on Sandy Creek. Several sections of stream channel have
been identified as significantly degraded. Stream restoration is proposed along approximately 2,000
linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Sandy Creek and wetland entrancement is proposed within the
floodplain. Buffer enhancement is proposed along the northern floodplain of Sandy Creek.
There are records for the federal species, of concern and state endangered Carolina creekshell
(Villosa vaughaniana) in Sandy Creek Stream and wetland restoration projects often improve water
quality and aquatic habitat. We recommend establishing native, forested buffers in riparian areas to
improve terrestrial habitat and provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided natural channel
design methods are used and measures are taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation from
construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in significant adverse impacts
to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you require farther assistance, please
contact our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fag: [phone]
2 `? SeSG ' Styr ' 9EE -4uer, Jg i -JeL4s pi'fr : 1 1 go 2a JdH
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Vc•icr B. tianclluck, adnvnisrrttur
Michael F. Farley, Goticrnor
h.gbuth ['. U alas, &crct;1rV
IctTrc'Y.I. f:TO%V, Ik-Putt' Sccrdarv
I L11v 21, 2008
G. Lane Sauls, j r.
Ecological Engineering
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, NC 27544
[ 1liicc of Arch n'es md History
1)n•isjcm o) I Iis[or,clf ltcsources
David Brixik, I]irceror
Re: F F]" Stream Mitigation Project, Charles Williams Site, EEP Project No. D08035S, Randolph County,
FR 08-0980
Dear Mr. Sauls:
Thank you for ,our letter of June 30, 2008, concerning; the above project.
Information contained in your letter and conversations with staff of the Office of :Mate !Archaeology indicates
that archaeological site 31 RD 12 is not located within the Area of Potential 1 'ffect (A i'1-') of the proposed
stream mitigation activities. The area of proposed excavation is located along the stream tributary and not
along the floodplaill of Sandy Creek. We therefore withdraw our earlier request for archaeological Survey and
testing in connection with this project. If the APE for this project changes in the future, please forward this
1111()11111 ltirll1 tO ()III' t?ftic-cI01• review.
The above comments arc made pursuant to Section 106 of the rational 1-lisroric ])reservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 806.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have cluestiolis concerning the ah ove comment,
please contact Renee (_lleclhilI- E :arley-, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807
-6579. In all feature
commul7ication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking nunibcr.
Sincerely,
I Y -"--ter Sandbeck
Locatlow IiF) Vast jone, 1;t rct, Raleigh NI' 2760 1 Mailing Address: 4617 Mad Service f.enie'r, RaJg4h IV[_ 2769'1-461'' Telcltlmne/Fax; (919) 8137-6570/8417-6599