20071814 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20071026

0 7- 1 8 1 4
Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Plan
Stanly County, North Carolina
EEP Project Number D06054-D
Prepared For
o~stem
~~1~; !~ ~ ~~~~~~~
October, 2007
Final Plans
NCDENR-EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
~~~ D
D ~~~
(JGj ~ 6 •~pol -,,
~w~"1
p~NR~~ 9~~~,~8
~~

Big Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
Stanly County, North Carolina
Baker Engineering NF Y, Inc.
X17 ~.7... r~~". ~~~[~; 11t
:~ l l ~t~.' f ~"~.~
F~h~;~C 7~:9 .3~4 ~1~3~1
F~ax~ 74<~l :i3=, ,~1~2
Christine D. Miller
Project Manager
C~ ~
William A. Harman, PG
Principal in Charge
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGEI
Report Prepared and Submitted by:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. (Baker) proposes to restore 10,6861inear feet (LF) of perennial channel along Big
Cedar Creek and two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2) in Stanly County, NC. Additionally, this plan proposes
1,094 LF of enhancement along Big Cedar Creek and UTl and 597 LF of preservation along Big Cedar Creek and
the northern most unnamed tributary (UT2). Big Cedar Creek flows directly into Rocky River approximately 500
feet below the site. The Big Cedar Creek site is approximately 10 miles south of Albemarle (Figure 11). The site
lies in the Yadkin River Basin within North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-07-14
and United States Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03040105060080.
The goals for the restoration project are as follows:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions on the Big Cedar Creek project site.
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections between the streams and their floodplains.
• Improve the water quality in the Big Cedar Creek and Rocky River watersheds.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
To accomplish these goals, we recommend the following:
• Restore the existing incised, eroding and channelized stream by creating a stable channel with access to
the floodplain.
• Improve water quality by establishing buffers for nutrient removal from runoff and by stabilizing stream
banks to reduce bank erosion and sediment contribution to creek flows.
• Improve in-stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re-aeration, providing woody debris for habitat and reducing bank erosion.
• Improve terrestrial habitat by planting riparian areas.
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in a permanent conservation easement to increase
storm water runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease water
temperature and provide cover and improve wildlife habitat.
• Improve channel stability and protect riparian buffer by excluding livestock through fencing streams and
riparian buffer limits.
Table ES.1 Restoration Plan Overview
Bi * Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
Compensatory
Project Feature Existing Design Approach Mitigation SMU
Condition (LF) Condition (LF) Ratio
4,987 Restoration 1:1 1,989
Big Cedar Creek 5,826 969 Enhancement II 1:2.5 388
435 Preservation 1:5 87
5,094 Restoration 1:1 5,094
UT1 5,210
125 Enhancement II 1:2.5 50

UT2 605 Restoration 1:1 605
625
162
Preservation
1:5
32
Total Stream 11,661 12,377 ---- 11,245
Work
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE II
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN a.

1

1

1
1

t
1
1
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Brief Project Description and Location .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Directions to the Project Site .............................................................................................................. 1-1
2.0 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Watershed Delineation ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Land Use and Development Trends .................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species ......................................................................................................... 2-4
2.5.1 Federally Listed Endangered Species .................................................................................... 2-5
2.5.1.1 Vertebrates .............................................................................................................. 2-5
2.5.1.2 Vascular Plants ....................................................................................................... 2-6
2.6 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 2-6
2.7 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites ........................................................................................ 2-6
2.8 Potential Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ........................................................................................ 2-7
2.8.2 Utilities ................................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.8.3 Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplain Characterization .......................................................... 2-7
3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions) ........................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification ................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Big Cedar Creek Mainstem & UT2 ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1.1 Big Cedar Creek Reach 1 ....................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.1.2 Big Cedar Creek Reach 2 ....................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.1.3 Big Cedar Creek Reach 3 ....................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.1.4 Big Cedar Creek Reach 4 ....................................................................................... 3-4
3.1.1.5 Big Cedar Creek Reach 5 ....................................................................................... 3-4
3.1.1.6 Big Cedar Creek Reach 6 ....................................................................................... 3-4
3.1.2 UT2 ........................................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.1.3 UTl ........................................................................................................................................ 3-5
3.1.3.1 UT1 Reach 1 ........................................................................................................... 3-6
3.1.3.2 UTl Reach 2 ........................................................................................................... 3-7
3.1.3.3 UTl Reach 3 ........................................................................................................... 3-7
3.1.3.4 UT1 Reach 4 ........................................................................................................... 3-7
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE III

3.2 Channel Stability Assessment ............................................................................................................. 3-8
3.2.1 Channel Evolution Process .................................................................................................. .. 3-8
3.2.2 Bank Erodibility Hazard Index and Near Bank Stress Measurements ................................ 3-10
3.3 Bankfull Verification ........................................................................................................................ 3-12
3.4 Bankfull Discharge ........................................................................................................................... 3-12
3.5 Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions ................................................................................................ 3-13
3.5.1 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest ............................................................................... 3-13
3.5.2 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest ........................................................................................... 3-14
3.5.3 Agricultural Areas ................................................................................................................ 3-14
4.0 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................4-1
5.0 Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions) ......................................................................... 5-1
6.0 Project Site Restoration Plan ..................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................... .. 6-1
6.2 Design Criteria Selection for Stream Restoration ............................................................................. .. 6-1
6.3 Design Parameters ............................................................................................................................ .. 6-3
6.3.1 Design Reaches ................................................................................................................... .. 6-3
6.3.1.1 Big Cedar Creek Reach 1 ..................................................................................... .. 6-4
6.3.1.2 Big Cedar Creek Reach 2 ..................................................................................... .. 6-4
6.3.1.3 Big Cedar Creek Reach 3 ..................................................................................... .. 6-4
6.3.1.4 Big Cedar Creek Reach 4 ..................................................................................... .. 6-4
6.3.1.5 Big Cedar Creek Reach 5 ..................................................................................... .. 6-4
6.3.1.6 Big Cedar Creek Reach 6 ..................................................................................... .. 6-4
6.3.1.7 UT2 Reach 1 ......................................................................................................... .. 6-5
6.3.1.8 UTl Reach 1 ......................................................................................................... .. 6-5
6.3.1.9 UT1 Reach 2 ......................................................................................................... .. 6-5
6.3.1.10 UT1 Reach 3 ....................................................................................................... .. 6-5
6.3.1.11 UT1 Reach 4 ....................................................................................................... .. 6-6
6.4 Sediment Transport ........................................................................................................................... 6-10
6.4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 6-10
6.4.2 Sediment Transport Analysis & Discussion ........................................................................ 6-10
6.5 In-Stream Structures ......................................................................................................................... 6-14
6.6 Soil Restoration ................................................................................................................................. 6-15
6.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration .............................................................................................. 6-15
6.7.1 Stream Buffer Vegetation .................................................................................................... 6-15
6.7.2 On-site Invasive Species Management ................................................................................ 6-18
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE IV
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

7.0 Performance Criteria ............................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Stream Monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.1 Bankfull Events ...................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2 Cross Sections ........................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile ............................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.4 Bed Material Analyses ........................................................................................................... 7-2
' 7.1.5 Photo Reference Sites ............................................................................................................
2 V
i
M
i
i
7 7-2
7
2
ng ........................................................................................................................
egetat
on
on
tor
. -
7.3 Benthic Monitoring ............................................................................................................................. 7-3
7.4 Maintenance Issues ............................................................................................................................. 7-3
7.5 Schedule/Reporting ............................................................................................................................. 7-3
' 8.0 References ................................................................................................................................. 8-1
1
1
1

1
1
1
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE V

List of Tables
Table ES.1 Restoration Plan Overview
Table 2.1 Drainage Areas by Reach
Table 2.2 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 2.3 Project Soil Type Characteristics
Table 2.4 Watershed Land Use
Table 2.5 Species of Federal and State Status in Stanly County
Table 3.1 Representative Geomorphic Data for Big Cedar Creek and UT2 -
Stream Channel Classification II
Table 3.2 Representative Geomorphic Data for UT1-Stream Channel Classification II
Table 3.3 Stability Indicators -Big Cedar Creek and UT2
Table 3.4 Stability Indicators - UT1
Table 3.5 Sediment Loading Estimate from BEHI
Table 3.6 Bankfull Discharge Determination
Table 4.1 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Table 6.1 Project Design Stream Types
Table 6.2 Proposed Geomorphic Characteristics for Big Cedar Creek and UT2
Table 6.3 Proposed Geomorphic Characteristics for UT1
Table 6.4 Existing Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -Big Cedar Creek and UT2
Table 6.5 Proposed Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -Big Cedar Creek and UT2
Table 6.6 Existing Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power - UT1
Table 6.7 Proposed Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power - UT1
Table 6.8 Proposed In-Stream Structure Types and Locations
Table 6.9 Proposed Bare-Root and Live-Stake Species
Table 6.10 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE VI
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map
Figure 1.2 Site Map
Figure 1.3 Watershed Map
Figure 2.1 Soils Map
Figure 2.2 FEMA Map
Figure 3.1 Existing Conditions Project Reaches and Surveyed Cross Section Locations
Figure 3.2 Rosgen Stream Classification
Figure 3.3 Simon Channel Evolution Model
Figure 3.4 NC Piedmont Regional Curve Big Cedar Creek, UTl, &UT2 -Existing
Conditions Riffle Areas
Figure 3.5 NC Piedmont Regional Curve Big Cedar Creek, UT1, &UT2 -Discharge
Figure 4.1 Reference Reach Locations
Figure 4.2 Reference Site Watershed Map
Figure 6.1 Proposed Stream Restoration Design
Figure 6.2 Shield's Curve Modified with Colorado Data
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE VII

List of Appendices
Appendix A Regulatory Agency Correspondence
Appendix B EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
Appendix C Existing Conditions Data
Appendix D Reference Reach Survey Data and Photographs
Appendix E Stream Identification Data Forms
Appendix F HEC-RAS Analysis

1
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE VIII '

' 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
' 1.1 Brief Project Description and Location
Baker proposes to restore 10,6861inear feet (LF) of perennial stream channel along Big Cedar Creek and two
' unnamed tributaries (UTl and UT2) in Stanly County, NC. Additionally, this plan proposes 1,094 LF of
Enhancement II along Big Cedar Creek and UTl and 597 LF of preservation along Big Cedar Creek and UT2.
' The Big Cedar Creek restoration site is located approximately ten miles south of the City of Albemarle in Stanly
County, North Carolina, as shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure l.l. The project site lies in the Yadkin River Basin
within NCDWQ sub-basin 03-07-14 and USGS hydrologic unit 03040105060080 (NCDENR, 2003). Figure 1.1
depicts the basin boundaries and USGS hydrologic unit code (HUC) for the project reach.
' The area has a history of general agricultural usage including cattle, cotton and corn production. The streams on
the project site have been channelized and riparian vegetation on the majority of the site has been removed. The
' riparian vegetation that is found on much of the site consists of successional and invasive species such as Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Big Cedar Creek, UTl, and UT2 are "blue-line" streams, as shown on the USGS topographic quadrangle for the
' site (Figure 1.3). Big Cedar Creek, UT1, and UT2 were determined to be perennial based on the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Forms (Appendix E). The total current length of stream on the project site is 11,661 LF.

1

1.2 Directions to the Project Site
The latitude and longitude at the center of the Big Cedar Creek project site is 80° 07' 37.72" W,
35° ll' 53.94" N.
Driving directions to the project site are as follows.
• From Highway 52, turn west onto Mount Zion Church Road (1.25 miles south of the Town of
Norwood.
• Continue approximately 0.5 mile west to the intersection of Mount Zion Road and Big Cedar Creek.
This is the southern project boundary as shown on Figure 1.2.
o UTl, UT2, and the upstream reaches of Big Cedar Creek can be
accessed from the farm road on the north side of Mount Zion
Church Road, approximately 0.25 miles east of the intersection
of the railroad and Mount Zion Church road.
o Reach 5 and 6 of Big Cedar Creek can be accessed from a farm
field approximately 0.1 mile west of the intersection of the
railroad and Mount Zion Church road.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 1-1

2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Watershed Delineation
The Big Cedar Creek Restoration project is located in Stanly County in the Yadkin River Basin. Within the
project boundary, the streams were divided into reaches based on changes in channel and valley geomorphology.
Watershed areas provided in Table 2.1 were calculated at the upstream and downstream ends of each stream reach
within the project boundaries. Figure 1.3 depicts the drainage areas for Big Cedar Creek, UT1, and UT2.
able 2.1 Drainage Areas By Reach
ig Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
~ ~
~. ~ ~ r li

~ ~
ig Cedar Creek -Reach 1 350 2.29 2.85
ig Cedar Creek -Reach 2 1,016 2.85 2.91
ig Cedar Creek -Reach 3 2,046 2.91 3.30
ig Cedar Creek -Reach 4 976 3.30 3.35
ig Cedar Creek -Reach 5 534 3.35 4.67
ig Cedar Creek -Reach 6 904 4.67 4.71
Tl -Reach 1 1,998 0.70 0.93
UTl -Reach 2 759 0.93 0.98
Tl -Reach 3 1,518 0.98 1.18
T1-Reach 4 935 1.18 1.21
T2 625 0.54 0.55
otal Existing Stream Length 11,661
2.2 Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality
NCDWQ designates surface water classifications for water bodies such as streams, rivers, and lakes which define
the best uses to be protected within these waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and drinking water supply). These
classifications are associated with water quality standards that govern those uses. All surface waters in North
Carolina must meet the minimum standards for fishable/swimmable waters (Class C). The other classifications
provide additional levels of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and drinking water supplies
(WS). Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation
and survival, agriculture, and other uses. Classifications and their associated protection standards may also be
designated to protect the free-flowing nature of a stream or other special characteristics (NC DENR, 2007).
Big Cedar Creek is classified by the NCDWQ as Class C waters (DWQ Index No. 13-17-44). Based on North
Carolina's tributary rule, its tributaries would also be considered Class "C" waters (NCDENR, 2005). Big Cedar
Creek's water quality is not specifically monitored as a part of a basinwide plan (NCDENR, 2003).
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
The Big Cedar Creek site lies within the Piedmont physiographic province. Medina and others describe the '
Piedmont as, "... consist(ing) of generally rolling, well-rounded hills and ridges with a few hundred feet of
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 2-1 '

' elevation difference between the hills and valleys. Elevations in the Piedmont range from 300 to 600 feet above
sea level near its border with the Coastal Plain to 1,500 feet at the foot of the Blue Ridge" (Medina, 2004).
The project site is located within the Carolina Slate Belt lithotectonic province of central North Carolina, and its
geology is comprised of Proterozoic and Cambrian age siltstone, mudstone, and mafic hypabyssal intrusive rocks
according to the 1 degree by 2 degree geologic map of the Charlotte Quadrangle prepared by the USGS
(Goldsmith et al., 1988). The siltstone and mudstone rock units are part of the Tillery and Cid Formations. The
' Tillery Formation contains millimeter-scale laminated siltstone and mudstone layers, is gray to locally green in
color, and contains minor tuff beds. The Cid Formation (Mudstone Member) commonly has graded 10-40 cm
thick beds consisting of a lower, ripple-marked, cross-bedded, stratified siltstone and an upper, laminated
siltstone-mudstone unit. The Cid Formation is gray in color but typically weathers to a tan. The mafic
hypabyssal intrusive rock unit is a greenstone compromised largely of actinolitic amphibole, albite, epidote, and
chlorite, with quartz and leucoxene.
' Soil types at the site were researched using Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey data for
Stanly County, along with on-site evaluations to determine any hydric soil areas. A map depicting the boundaries
of each soil type is presented in Figure 2.1. There are four primary soils found within the project boundary:
' Oakboro, Congaree, Goldston, and Badin. A discussion of each soil type is presented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3.
Table 2.2 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Big C'cdar C'rcck Rrst~~ratiun Plan
'il Name Location Description
Oakboru Flcxxlplain The Oakhoro series cunsists of deep, moderately well
drained and somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in
loamy alluvium from slates, siltstones, sandstones, and
tuffs in the Carolina Slate Qelt of the Piedmont. Slopes
range from 0 to 2 percent.
Congaree Floodplain The Congaree series consists of deep, well to moderately
well drained, moderately permeable loamy soils that
formed in fluvial sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 4
percent.
Goldston Adjacent to The Goldston series consists of shallow, well drained to
floodplain excessively drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils
that formed in residuum weathered from fine-grained
metavolcanic rocks in the Carolina Slate Belt. Slopes
range from 2 to 60 percent.
Badin Adjacent to The Badin series consists of moderately deep, well
floodplain drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in
residuum weathered from fine-grained metavolcanic
rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt. These soils are on
gently sloping to steep uplands in the Piedmont. Slopes
range from 2 to 55 percent.
Note:
USDA, NRCS. Official Soil Series Descriptions
(http://ortho.ftw.nres.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi)
The predominant soil series within the floodplain area of the site is mapped as Oakboro silt loam series. This soil
type is considered a hydric soil type in Stanly County, indicating that in some areas of mapped Oakboro soils,
inclusions of hydric soils can compose up to 3°Io of the mapped areas.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 2-2
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 2.3 Project Soil Type Characteristics
tii~, C'rclar Crc~k Rrst~~rati~m Pl~ui
Series
Max
% Clay on Erosion Erosion

Depth (in)
Surface Factor Factor OM %
K T
Oakboro silt loam (Oa) 10 27 0.2b 3 1-4
Congaree fine sandy loam (Co) 10 15 .24 5 1-3
Goldston very channery silt loam (GoF) 7 15 .OS 2 0.5-2
Badin channery silt loam (BaF) 6 27 0.15 3 1-3
Source:
USDA, MRCS. Official Soil Series Descriptions
(http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx)
2.4 Land Use and Development Trends
The Big Cedar Creek restoration project area drains predominately forested and agricultural lands, as well as a
portion of the residential and commercial district of the town of Norwood. The Winston-Salem Southbound
Railroad line parallels Big Cedar to the east, then turns to cross Big Cedar and UT1 upstream of their confluence.
Table 2.4 presents a summary of land uses found within the Big Cedar Creek watershed. This land use
composition was derived from a 2001 National Land Cover Database (Vogelmann et al., 2001) published by
United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Over half of the Big Cedar Creek watershed, or approximately X6.1 percent, is occupied by forested land and
represents the largest land use classification within the watershed. The majority of forested land is situated within
the central and western third of the watershed. The second largest land use category is agricultural lands,
represented by Pasture/Hay and Cultivated Crops classifications in Table 2.4. Together these two land uses
comprise approximately 27.9 percent of the watershed and are located around the outer periphery of the
watershed. A larger proportion of agricultural lands are concentrated in the south and southeastern portion of the
watershed, within the restoration project area and in proximity to the watershed outlet. Developed Open Space
and Grassland/Herbaceous land uses are mostly found within the north and northeast portions of the watershed
surrounding Low-Medium Intensity Development of the neighboring town of Norwood. These three land uses
comprise approximately 7.5, 6.5, and 1.3 percent of the watershed, respectively.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 2-3
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 2.4 Watershed Land Use
Bi~~ C'cdar C'xcck Rcst~~rati~~n Plan
Land Use Cate orv Area (acres) Percent Area
Forested 1720.0 X6.1
Pasture/Ha 808.4 26.4
Develo ed O en S ace 228.9 7.5
Grassland/Herbaceous 198.8 6.5
Cultivated Cro s 47.4 1.5
Develo ed Low-Medium Intensit 38.5 1.3
Wood Wetlands 7.1 0.2
Shrub/Scrub 6.8 0.2
Barren Land Rock/Sand/Cla 3.3 0.1
O en Water 3.3 0.1
There is only one community within the Big Cedar Creek watershed, the Town of Norwood, where the estimated
population was 2,216 in 2000 (US Census Bureau, 2000). The population declined to 2,160 according to the 2005
US Census Bureau's population estimate. Based on that trend, it is estimated that the municipality in the project
area will undergo only minimal growth in population and land area over the next 25 years.
It is also reasonable to anticipate that only minimal changes in land use will take place over the next 25 years.
Land use change will probably be concentrated in areas where infrastructure improvements take place. Current
data shows that these areas may be concentrated in the northeastern section of the watershed near the Town of
Norwood. However, given the lack of growth forecasted for the area, land uses are estimated to be insignificant.
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining because of either natural forces or their inability to compete
for resources with the encroachment of humans. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) and United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) composed a list of rare and protected animal and plant species that
contains two federally listed species known to exist in Stanly County (USFWS, 2007 and NCNHP, 2006).
Legal protection for federally listed species, Threatened (T) or Endangered (E) status, is conferred by the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1534). This act makes illegal the killing, harming,
harassing, or removing of any federally listed animal species from the wild; plants are similarly protected but only
on federal lands. Section 7 of this act requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they fund or authorize do
not jeopardize any federally listed species.
Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP1ist of Rare
Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Species that the NHP lists under federal protection in Stanly County as of August 8, 2006, are listed in Table 2.5.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of the federally protected species is included in
the following section, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 2-4
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 2.5 Species of Federal and State Status in Stanly County
t3i~~ Cedar Creek Rcst~~rati~~n Plan
Family Scientific Name Common Federal State Habitat Present /Biological ;,
Name Status Status Conclusion
Vertebrate
Accipitridae Hnliaeetus Bald Eagle T T No/No Effect
(eucocep/ial«s
Vascular Plant
Asteraceae Helianthus Schweinitz's E E Yes/No Effect
sc/awentitzii Sunflower
Notes:
6 An endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or fauna is
determined to be in jeopardy.
T Threatened
A pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted on September 14, 2006, for species listed in Table 2.5. No
federal protected species were observed in or adjacent to the project area during the field survey. A September
12, 2006, search of the NHP database indicated there are no known populations of these species within five miles
of the study area.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has been contacted and has not expressed concerns
regarding protected species on the project site. Big Cedar Creek is not a Designated Public Trout Water, so trout
buffer restrictions do not apply to this site. A copy of the WRC letter is included in Appendix A.
The USFWS was notified of the project on September 15, 2006. Baker did not receive any comments from the
USFWS. All correspondence on this issue is included in Appendix A.
2.5.1 Federally Listed Endangered Species
2.5.1.1 Vertebrates
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle)
Bald eagles are large raptors, 32 to 43 inches long, with a white head, white tail, yellow
bill, yellow eyes, and yellow feet. The lower section of the leg has no feathers.
Wingspread is about seven feet. The characteristic plumage of adults is dark brown to
black with young birds completely dark brown. Juveniles have a dark bill, pale markings
on the belly, tail, and under the wings and do not develop the white head and tail until five
to six years old (NHP, 2001).
Bald eagles in the Southeast frequently build their nests in the transition zone between
forest and marsh or open water. Nests are cone-shaped, six to eight feet from top to
bottom, and six feet or more in diameter. They are typically constructed of sticks lined
with a combination of leaves, grasses, and Spanish moss. Nests are built in dominant live
pines or cypress trees that provide a good view and clear flight path, usually less than 0.5
miles from open water. Winter roosts are usually in dominant trees, similar to nesting
trees, but may be somewhat farther from water. In North Carolina, nest building takes
place in December and January, with egg laying (clutch of one to three eggs) in February
and hatching in March. Bald eagles are opportunistic feeders consuming a variety of living
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 2-5
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

prey and carrion. Up to 80 percent of their diet is fish, which is self caught, scavenged, or
robbed from osprey. They may also take various small mammals and birds, especially
those weakened by injury or disease (NHP, 2001).
The study site does not possess favorable habitat for the bald eagle since the site is more
than 2 miles from open water. A search of the NHP database on September 12, 2006, found
no known populations within five miles of the immediate project area. A determination
was made that the proposed project will have "no effect" for this species.
2.5.1.2 Vascular Plants
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's Sunflower)
Schweinitz's sunflower, usually three to six feet tall, is a perennial herb with one to several
fuzzy purple stems growing from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. Leaves are two to
seven inches long, 0.4 to 0.8 inch wide, lance shaped, and usually opposite, with upper
leaves alternate. Flowers are yellow and generally smaller than other sunflowers in North
America. Flowering and fruiting occurs from mid-September to frost. The Schweinitz's
sunflower grows in clearings and along edges of upland woods, thickets, and pastures. It is
also found along roadsides, power line clearings, and woodland openings. It prefers full
sunlight or partial shade and is tolerant of full shade (NHP, 2001).
According to the NHP database, no known Schweinitz's sunflower populations have been
identified within 5 miles of the proposed project area. Habitat exists for Schweinitz's
sunflower in woodland openings and pastures within the proposed project. A survey was
conducted on September 14, 2006, for potential individuals throughout the project area and
none were identified. Livestock have exclusive access to the mainstem of Big Cedar Creek
and UT2; as a result, potential individuals may have been grazed or trampled. Therefore, a
"no effect" determination was made for Schweinitz's sunflower.
2.6 Cultural Resources
A letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on August 29, 2006, requesting
a review and comment for the potential of cultural resources in the vicinity of the Big Cedar Creek restoration
site. A response was received on September 15, 2006, indicating that the SHPO had reviewed the proposed
project and was not aware of any historic resources that would be affected by the project. No formal surveys have
been performed at the site previously. A copy of the SHPO correspondence is included in Appendix A.
2.7 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
An EDR Transaction Screen Map Report that identifies and maps real or potential hazardous environmental sites
within the distance required by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Transaction Screen
Process (E 1528) was prepared for the site on August 15, 2006. A copy of the report with an overview map is
included in Appendix B. The overall environmental risk for this site was determined to be low. Environmental
' sites including Superfund (National Priorities List, NPL); hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System
(CERCLIS), suspect state hazardous waste, solid waste or landfill facilities, or leaking underground storage tanks
were not identified by the report in the proposed project area. During field data collection, there was no evidence
' of these sites in the proposed project vicinity, and conversations with landowners did not reveal any further
knowledge of hazardous environmental sites in the area.
' BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 2-6
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

2.8 Potential Constraints
Baker assessed the Big Cedar Creek project site in regards to potential fatal flaws and site constraints. No fatal
flaws have been identified during project design development.
2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
Baker has obtained a conservation easement from the current landowners for the Big Cedar Creek
project area. The easement is held by the State of North Carolina and has been recorded at the Stanly
County Courthouse (Deed Book 1165, Page Number 865(18)). The easement allows Baker to
proceed with the restoration project and restricts the land use in perpetuity.
The site can be accessed for construction and post-restoration monitoring. Construction access and
staging areas will be identified during final design.
2.8.2 Utilities
No utility easements are present within the conservation easement. The Winston-Salem Southbound
Railroad crosses Big Cedar Creek and UT1 just upstream of their confluence and maintains a 100 foot
right-of-way. The right-of-way is excluded from the conservation easement.
2.8.3 Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplain Characterization
The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Stanly County, NC, (Map Numbers 37167C0250D
and 37167C0275D) indicates that the project is located within a regulatory Zone A floodplain where
no base flood information is available. Figure 2.2 illustrates the FEMA mapping near the site.
The topography of the site and the restoration techniques employed at the upstream extents of the
project will limit the potential to create a hydrologic trespass issue related to the site restoration.
Results from the HEC-RAS analysis are provided in Appendix F.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 2-7
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

' 3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
3.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification
Baker performed representative longitudinal and cross section surveys of the existing stream reaches to assess the
' current condition, stability and overall function of the channels. Baker also collected substrate samples to
characterize stream sediments. Figure 3.1 illustrates the locations of cross section surveys on the project reaches.
The following sections of this report summarize the survey results for the mainstem reaches. Surveyed cross
sections, profiles, and site photos are included in Appendix C.
3.1.1 Big Cedar Creek Mainstem &UT2
The existing mainstem channel of Big Cedar Creek and UT2 are depicted in Figure 3.1. Table 3.1
' summarizes the geomorphic parameters of both channels. Both Big Cedar Creek and UT2 were
historically straightened for agricultural purposes and are currently under pressure from livestock
encroachment In general, the bedform diversity of Big Cedar Creek is poor with long stagnant,
backwater pools formed by natural grade control features, such as riffles. Bedform features formed
by hydraulic processes are absent from this reach. Existing conditions reach breakpoints are defined
by a change in geomorphic characteristics found in the stream bed as well as moderate changes in
valley slope.
Big Cedar Creek flows through a broad, alluvial floodplain. The overall valley slope is 0.007 ft/ft.
Within the project limits, Big Cedar Creek is in various stages of stability. From upstream to
downstream, Big Cedar Creek changes from an incised E type channel, to a Bc, to a straightened C, to
a Bc and to an F. These various channel types are commonly seen in alluvial valleys throughout the
Piedmont where agricultural activities have directly impacted the channel and riparian zone, resulting
in an unstable system. Overall, Big Cedar Creek is incised and is disconnected from the historic
floodplain at bankfull stage. Incision is indicated by bank height ratios in the 1.5 to 2.2 range.
Although portions of the channel are moving towards quasi-equilibrium, the channel continues to lack
bedform diversity as well as the sinuosity expected given the valley type and slope. The channel will
continue to erode its streambanks to increase belt width until a higher sinuosity is achieved.
UT2 flows from the northwest property corner through an alluvial, forested floodplain, then through
' an alluvial cattle pasture and converges with Big Cedar Creek. The valley slope of the lower
floodplain is 0.024 ft/ft. UT2 is classified as a G.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 3-1
1

Table 3.1 Representative Geomorphic Data for Big Cedar Creek and UT2- Rosgen Stream Channel Classification
Big Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
Parateyr ,Big Cedar Creek UT2 Units
'. beach 1 ~eair~ ~ .;
~T ~~
'tesrh 3 Reach 4 S~~ch ~ ~ c# 6` ' Reach,l % '-
Xt _
~~; • _
~ ;;X6 X7 ~4 X1E0 Yl
Feature Type Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle
Bankfull 16.3 22.0 19.5 29.6 26.3 25.6 9.2 Feet
Width (Why)
Bankfull Mean 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.4 1.2 Feet
Depth (dh~)
Cross- 36.7 39.7 32.8 47.1 41.5 60.9 10.8 Square
Sectional Area feet
(Any)
Width/Depth 7.1 12.2 11.5 18.5 16.4 10.7 7.7
Ratio (W/D
ratio)
Bankfull Max 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.3 3.1 1.6 Feet
Depth (dmn~)
Floodprone >126.6 33.0 >111.4 >109.7 >52.9 30.4 >142.2 Feet
Area Width
~WCpa~
Entrenchment >7.8 1.5 >5.7 >3.7 >2.0 1.2 >15.5
Ratio (ER)
Bank Height 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.3
Ratio (BHR)
Channel Medium Coarse Coarse Coarse Small Small Medium
Materials Gravel, Gravel, Gravel, Gravel, Cobble, Cobble, Gravel
(Particle Size Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock
Index - ds~~) Influenced Influenced Influenced Influenced Influenced Influenced
d~~, <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 0.3 <0.06 <0.06 mm
des 6 8 8 5 40 15 8 mm
d51 14 17 17 17 90 34 15 mm
dx4 100 85 85 120 >2048 130 64 mm
d~,5 300 350 350 >2048 >2048 >2048 90 mm
Water Surface 0.0080 0.0077 0.0045 0.0088 0.0126 0.0033 0.0215 Feet per
Slope (S) foot
Channel 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1
Sinuosity (K)
Rosgen Stream E4/1 B4/lc C4/1 C4/1 B3/lc F3/1 G4
Type'
Notes:
1. See Figure 3.2 for additional information.
2. Values in this chart are rounded and therefore may differ slightly from actual values.
3. All values re orted in this chart are based off one data oint.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 3-2
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

3.1.1.1 Big Cedar Creek Reach 1
The head of Reach 1 is defined by a wood line and marks the upstream extent of the project
area. Reach 1 ends approximately 60 LF below the confluence of Big Cedar Creek and
UT2. Reach 1 is horizontally confined, and its bank height ratio of 1.8 indicates that the
reach does not have access to a floodplain at the bankfull stage. Existing conditions
sediment competence analyses confirmed high shear stresses. Further detail on these
analyses is given in Section 6.4. The reach has a low width to depth ratio of 7.1 and an
overall channel slope of 0.008 ft/ft. As a result of the low width to depth ratio, no
depositional areas, such as point bars, lateral bars, or side bars are present throughout this
reach.
The floodprone width for Reach 1 is greater than 126 ft, giving the cross section an
entrenchment ratio typical of an E stream type. Although the floodprone area is wide, it
rises only 0.2 ft above the top of the low bank. Thus, the majority of storm flows are
contained within the banks and the channel does not experience floodplain relief during
storm flows. This reach, although classified as an E stream type, functions as a Gc stream.
If left alone, this reach would vertically incise (where feasible) and laterally erode until
quasi-equilibrium was reached. For more information on the evolutionary stage of this
channel, please refer to section 3.2.
Bedform diversity ranges from sorted gravels and cobbles in riffles to finer particles in
pools. Bedrock was most frequently observed in the pools and controls the maximum pool
depth. The reach is classified as an E4/1 to indicate that while the d50 particle size
corresponds to the gravel classification (4), the reach exhibits bedrock control (1).
3.1.1.2 Big Cedar Creek Reach 2
Reach 2 extends 1,016 LF downstream from Reach 1 and is defined by an increase in width
to depth ratio. Reach 2 has a similar channel slope to Reach 1 of 0.0077 ft/ft but has a
width to depth ratio of 12.2. The channel is incised as evidenced by bank height ratios of
1.9 and is horizontally constrained. Depositional bars, including lateral bars, are common
throughout this reach due to the increase in width to depth ratio. Long, stagnant, backwater
pools followed by riffle/run sequences are typical of this reach. This reach has dimensions
of an F stream type; however the entrenchment ratio classifies this channel as a Bc stream
type. This suggests that this channel was recently an F and is in the process of widening its
floodplain through erosion. Mass erosion will continue until the stream reaches quasi-
equilibrium. For more information on channel evolution, please see section 3.2.
Bedform diversity ranges from well sorted gravels and cobbles in riffles to finer particles in
pools. Bedrock was observed in pools and controls the maximum pool depth. The reach is
classified as a Rosgen B4/lc channel due to the presence of both gravel and bedrock.
3.1.1.3 Big Cedar Creek Reach 3
Reach 3 extends 2,046 LF downstream of Reach 2 and is defined by a decrease in channel
slope. The overall channel slope for this reach is 0.0045 ft/ft. The channel has an
entrenchment ratio of >5.7 and a width to depth ratio of 11.5. However, the reach is
moderately incised as indicated by a bank height ratio of 1.6. Reach 3 exhibits well sorted
gravel and cobble riffles. Point bars and lateral bars are observed throughout this reach. A
bedrock riffle 100 LF in length is located at the base of Reach 3. This feature acts as grade
control for the entire reach. This reach is classified as a C4/1, although sinuosity is much
lower than expected for a C channel due to past channelization. If left alone, this channel
would continue to laterally erode to increase sinuosity. A small ephemeral tributary joins
Big Cedar on the left bank approximately two thirds of the way down the reach. This area
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 33
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

is heavily traversed by cattle and contributes fine sediment through bank erosion to the
system.
3.1.1.4 Big Cedar Creek Reach 4
Reach 4 extends 976 LF from the bedrock riffle at the base of Reach 3 to the railroad
culvert. The stream was channelized along the right valley wall. There are several bedrock
riffles throughout this reach that function as grade control. The channel dimension is
typical of a C4/l; however, the stream lacks sinuosity. The entrenchment ratio and the
width to depth ratio are high which would indicate a stable cross-section; however, the
bank height ratio is 1.6. This indicates that the channel is incised and unable to access its
floodplain to dissipate excess energy. If left alone, this channel would continue to laterally
erode to increase sinuosity.
3.1.1.5 Big Cedar Creek Reach 5
Reach 5 extends 534 LF from the railroad culvert to the confluence with UT1. This reach
has a mature forested buffer on both banks. The channel runs along the left valley wall and
is confined by the railroad embankment on the right. Due to this horizontal confinement,
Reach 5 lacks sinuosity and is the steepest section of Big Cedar Creek throughout the
project area. The channel slope is 0.0126 ft/ft. Because the channel cannot dissipate
energy through lateral meanders, the channel dissipates energy vertically through steep
riffles and step-pools, many of which have formed in bedrock. Reach 5 classifies as a
stable B3/1c stream.
3.1.1.6 Big Cedar Creek Reach 6
Reach 6 extends from below the confluence of Big Cedar Creek mainstem and UTl to the
Mount Zion Church Road culvert. Mount Zion Church Road marks the southern project
boundary. The left bank of this reach is the forested valley wall, while the right bank is
adjacent to a cattle pasture with approximately 20 to 35 feet of mature forested buffer. This
reach has a low entrenchment ratio and is disconnected from the floodplain as evidenced by
bank height ratios of 2.2. Deep-rooted woody vegetation is holding the banks in place at
the riffle cross section, giving a low width to depth ratio of 10.7; however, the majority of
the channel is without mature vegetation and has consistently high width to depth ratios.
Reach 6 classifies as an F3/1 stream. Lateral and point bars are prevalent throughout this
reach, indicating that the channel is actively developing a new floodplain at a lower
elevation. If left alone, this channel would continue to reform the floodplain through lateral
erosion and deposition, and eventually would evolve into a C channel type.
3.1.2 UT2
UT2 extends from the northwestern property boundary 625 LF downstream to the confluence with
Big Cedar Creek. The stream has a mature forested buffer and stable dimension and pattern for the
first 162 LF. Downstream of the forested buffer, the stream flows through a heavily utilized alluvial
pasture. Sporadic riparian vegetation exists directly adjacent to the channel and primarily consists of
invasive, early successional species. The substrate is sorted gravels in the riffles and fine sediments,
presumably generated from livestock disturbance of the banks. UT2 was historically straightened and
is now incised and disconnected from the floodplain. The riffle cross section X1 was taken at an old
cattle crossing and the entrenchment ratio measured does not accurately represent the entire reach.
This reach is classified as a G4 stream and has an overall channel slope of 0.0215 ft/ft. Sediment
transport calculations performed on the existing conditions also indicate a degrading channel with
high shear stress on the bed and banks. If left alone, this channel would continue to incise and then
laterally erode to develop a floodplain. For more information on channel evolution, please refer to
Section 3.2.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 3-4
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

3.1.3 UTl
UT1 to Big Cedar Creek is depicted in Figure 3.1. UTl flows through an alluvial floodplain with
shallow bedrock. In the 1960's, a trapezoidal ditch was excavated at the edge of the field and the
stream was routed into the ditch. Since that time, the stream has formed benches within the excavated
channel. The channel is located at the low point on the valley, and the land slopes gently up and
away from the top of banks. The overall valley slope is 0.014 ft/ft. Like Big Cedar Creek, UT1
exhibits characteristics commonly seen throughout the Piedmont where historic agricultural
manipulation of the floodplain in the form of filling, grading, and plowing have directly impacted the
channel and riparian zone, resulting in an unstable system. Bank height ratios range from 1.4 to 2.1.
Because the channel is incised, it lacks hydraulic functions such as floodplain connectivity.
Additionally, although shallow bedrock has prevented further vertical incision, development of bed
features through hydraulic processes has also been halted. The channel is vertically stable, however,
bedform diversity is poor and the channel continues to function as more of a ditch than a stream.
Table 3.2 summarizes the geomorphic parameters of UT1. Existing condition reach breakpoints were
defined by a change in geomorphic characteristics found in the stream bed, significant drainage area
changes, and moderate changes in valley type and slope.
1
1

BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 3-5

Table 3.2 Representative Geomorphic Data for UTl- Rosgen Stream Channel Classification
Big Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
JJ~'1
~hir~in~ter ;; "~ .~ea~ ~ #2es~ ~' : 'itt~~h 3 ` .,..'Reach '~ ~U nits . .
Feature Type Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle
Bankfull Width (Wei) 18.9 13.1 17.6 23.1 Feet
Bankfull Mean Depth
(dn~r) 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 Feet
Cross-Sectional Area
(Ah~) 14.4 18.5 20.9 22.6 Square
feet
Width/Depth Ratio (W/D
ratio) 23.6 9.4 14.7 23.1
Bankfull Max Depth
(dmnkr) 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.8 Feet
Floodprone Area Width
(Wail) >135.3 48.8 >115.2 69.2 Feet
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) >7.2 3.7 >6.5 3.0
Bank Height Ratio (BH) 1.6 2.1 1.4 1.8
Channel Materials
(Particle Size Index -
ds„) Coarse gravel Very Coarse
gravel Medium
to Coarse
gravel Coarse to
Very Coarse
gravel
d ~ ~, <.06 <.06 <.06 <.06 mm
d35 7 11 8 11 mm
dsl~ 18 40 16 32 mm
dH4 149 >2048 110 100 mm
d~,; >2048 >2048 1024 180 mm
Water Surface Slope (S) 0.0116 0.0140 0.0134 0.0145 Feet per
foot
Channel Sinuosity (K) 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1
Rosgen Stream Type'` C4/1 E4/1 C4/1 C4/1
Notes:
1. See Figure 3.2 for additional information
2. Values in this chart are rounded and therefore may differ slightly from actual values.
3. All values re resented are based on one data oint.
3.1.3.1 UTl Reach 1
Reach 1 begins just downstream of a gravel road crossing and extends approximately 1,998
LF downstream. In an effort to maximize the area available for agricultural production,
this reach and adjacent ephemeral/intermittent tributaries were historically straightened to
improve drainage. The channel is wide and shallow throughout Reach 1 and has a width to
depth ratio of 23.6. Although the channel dimensions classify the stream as a C type
channel, the stream is incised as evidenced by a bank height ratio of 1.6. Reach 1 also does
not exhibit a defined riffle pool sequence typical of a C channel. The lack of a defined
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 3-6 ,
1

riffle pool sequence is the result of channelization and bedrock. Bedrock nickpoints have
provided vertical stability and have limited channel incision. Maximum pool depth for this
reach is limited by bedrock outcroppings and is not a function of scour.
' The banks throughout Reach 1 are moderately stable due to established woody vegetation
and extensive bedrock formations. Bed substrate material ranges from well sorted gravels
and cobbles in riffles to finer particles in pools. Point bars are absent from this reach,
' indicating that a new floodplain at a lower elevation has not started to form. Reach 1 is
classified as a Rosgen C4/1 channel to indicate that while the reach wide d50 particle size
corresponds to a gravel particle (4), the reach exhibits bedrock control (1).
t 3.1.3.2 UT1 Reach 2
Reach 2 is an approximately 759 LF straightened reach that has medium to dense brush and
trees along the left top of bank and floodplain. This reach break was defined by a decrease
in width to depth ratio to 9.4. This channel is incised as indicated by a bank height ratio of
2.1. Reach 2's channel dimensions are typical of an incised E type channel.
' Bed substrate material ranges in size from bedrock to silt and clay found in the pools.
Maximum pool depths for this reach are a function of the bedrock outcrops. These
outcrops provide vertical stability and prevent channel incision. Reach 2 is classified as a
Rosgen E4/1 channel.
3.1.3.3 UTl Reach 3
Reach 3 extends 1,518 LF downstream from Reach 2 and is defined by a wider and
shallower typical cross section than Reach 2. The downstream limits of Reach 3 are
defined by a gravel stream crossing. The width to depth ratio throughout this reach
averages around 14.7; however, it increases to 45.5 near the gravel stream crossing where
bed and bank definition is lost. Channel dimension throughout Reach 3 is typical of a C
type channel; however, this reach is incised and disconnected from the floodplain as
evidenced by a bank height ratio of 1.4. If left alone, portions of this reach that are overly
wide would aggrade, however the channel overall would continue to function as a
channelized ditch. Functions such as diversified bedform and floodplain connectivity
cannot be restored.
Bed substrate material ranges in size from bedrock to silt and clay found in the pools.
Maximum pool depths for this reach are a function of the bedrock outcrops. These
outcrops provide vertical stability and prevent channel incision. Reach 3 is classified as a
Rosgen C4/1 channel.
3.1.3.4 UTl Reach 4
Reach 4 extends approximately 935 feet from the gravel stream crossing at the downstream
end of Reach 3 through the railroad culvert to the confluence with Big Cedar Creek. This
reach runs along the right valley wall and may have been relocated and straightened to
maximize available cropland. This reach has a high width to depth ratio of 23.1 and is
horizontally confined within the banks. The channel dimension is typical of a Rosgen C
type channel; however, this reach is incised and disconnected from the floodplain as
evidenced by a bank height ratio of 1.8.
Bed substrate material ranges in size from bedrock to silt and clay found in the pools.
Maximum pool depths for this reach are a function of the bedrock outcrops. These
outcrops provide vertical stability and prevent channel incision. Reach 4 is classified as a
Rosgen C4/1 channel.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 3-7
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

3.2 Channel Stability Assessment
A naturally stable stream must be able to transport the sediment load supplied by its watershed while maintaining
dimension, pattern, and profile over time so that it does not degrade or aggrade (Rosgen, 1994). Stable streams
migrate across alluvial landscapes slowly, over long periods, while maintaining their form and function.
Instability occurs when scouring causes the channel to incise (degrade) or excessive deposition causes the channel
bed to rise (aggrade). A generalized relationship of stream stability was proposed by Lane (1955) that states the
product of sediment load and sediment size is proportional to the product of stream slope and discharge, or stream
power. A change in any one of these variables causes a rapid physical adjustment in the stream channel.
3.2.1 Channel Evolution Process
A common sequence of physical adjustments has been observed in many streams following
disturbance. This adjustment process is often referred to as channel evolution. Disturbance can result
from channelization, increase in runoff due to build-out in the watershed, removal of streamside
vegetation, and other changes that negatively affect stream stability. All of these disturbances occur
in both urban and rural environments. Several models have been used to describe this process of
physical adjustment for a stream. The Simon (1989) Channel Evolution Model characterizes
evolution in six steps, including:
1. Sinuous, pre-modified
2. channelized
3. Degradation
4. Degradation and widening
5. Aggradation and widening
6. Quasi-equilibrium.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the six steps of the Simon Channel Evolution Model.
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well-vegetated stream that interacts
frequently with its floodplain is disturbed. Disturbance commonly results in an increase in stream
power that causes degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955). Incision eventually
leads to over-steepening of the banks, and when critical bank heights are exceeded, the banks begin to
fail, and mass wasting of soil and rock leads to channel widening. Incision and widening continue
moving upstream in the form of a head-cut. Eventually the mass wasting slows, and the stream
begins to aggrade. Anew, low-flow channel begins to form in the sediment deposits. By the end of
the evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension, pattern, and profile similar to those of
undisturbed channels forms in the deposited alluvium. The new channel is at a lower elevation than
its original form, with a new floodplain constructed of alluvial material (FISRWG, 1998).
The mainstem channel within the project area is a perennial, channelized stream with a flow regime
dominated by storm water runoff from a watershed that is approximately 45% forested, 50%
agricultural and 5% developed. The mainstem channel is incised as evidenced by bank height ratios
in the 1.5 to 2.2 range. UT2 within the project area is a perennial, channelized stream. Its watershed
is predominately forested, with agricultural areas on the ridges of the watershed and within the project
limits. UT2 is incised as evidenced by bank height ratios of 1.3 and exhibits shear banks with
minimal riparian vegetation. UT1 flows through predominately forested floodplain outside the
project limits. Within the project limits, UT1 becomes incised and disconnected from the floodplain,
as evidenced by bank height ratios in the 1.6 to 2.1 range.
Table 3.3 summarizes the geomorphic parameters related to channel stability for Big Cedar Creek,
UT1 and UT2.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 3-8
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 3.3 Stability Indicators -Big Cedar Creek and UT2
13i~~ Ccdar Crrck Rcst~~rati~u~ Plan
Big Cedar Creek UT2 `'
Parameter Reach I Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach -I Reach 5 Reach 6 Reach 1
Xl. X4 Y6 X7 X9 X10 X1
Stream Type E4/1 B4/lc C4/1 C4/1 B3/lc F3/1 G4
Narrow Narrow Narrow Narrow mature Wide, Wide, Narrow
mature woody mature mature woody buffer mature mature early
buffer ranging woody woody buffer ranging from 3 forested forested successional
from 3 to 5 buffer ranging from to 5 feet wide buffer. buffer on woody
feet wide. ranging 3 to 5 feet followed by a Cleared left bank. buffer
Pasture from 3 to 5 wide. wide buffer of railroad Mature ranging
grasses feet wide. Pasture pasture on the easement forested from 3 to 5
extend Pasture grasses left bank. 100 to 300 buffer feet wide.
Riparian beyond grasses extend Forested right feet from ranging Pasture
Vegetation woody buffer. extend beyond bank for first right from 25 to grasses
beyond woody 900 LF, then bank. 30 feet on extend
woody buffer. wide buffer of right bank. beyond
buffer. Sporadic pasture for last Pasture woody
wetland 200 LF on grasses buffer.
pockets right bank. extend
present beyond
within forested
pasture. buffer.
Channel Dimension
Bankfull Area 36.7 39.7 32.8 47.1 41.5 60.9 10.8
(SF)
Width/Depth 71 12.2 11.5 18.5 16.4 10.7 7.7
Ratio
Channel Pattern
Meander ~ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Width Ratio
Sinuosity 1.0 LO 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1
Vertical Sta bility
Bank Height 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.3
Ratio (BHR)
Entrenchment ~~ 8 LS >5.7 >3.7 >2.0 1.2 >15.5
Ratio (ER)
Evolution E-G-F-Bc- E-G-F-Bc- E-G-F-Bo- E-G-F- E-G-F-Bo- E-G-F-Bc-C-
Scenario C-E C-E E-G-F-Bc-C-E C-E Bc-C-E C-E E
Simon
Evolution III IV-V IV-V V VI IV III
Stage'
Notes:
I. N/A: Meander Width Ratio no[ measured because channel has been straightened.
2. Simon Channel Evolution see Figure 3.3.
3. Values in this chart are rounded and therefore may differ slightly from actual values.
4. All values rc resented are based on one data Dint.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 3-9
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 3.4 Stability Indicators - UTl
13ig Cc~lar Crock Rcst~~rati~ut Plan I
Parameter iJTl
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
X3 X6 X7 X 13
Strc~lnl ~I~chc C~ I E-l 1 C-l 1 (~-l. 1
Riparian Woody buffer Mature forest on Woody buffer Mature forest along the
Vegetation ranging from 3 to the left top of bank ranging from 3 to 5 right top of bank and
5 feet on both the and floodplain. feet on both the left floodplain. Up to 3 feet of
left and right Crop land on the and right woody buffer on the left
floodplains. Crop right top of bank IIoodplains. Crop top of bank and
land extends and floodplain. land extends floodplain. Crop land
beyond narrow beyond narrow extends beyond narrow
woody buffer. woody buffer. woody buffer on left
floodplain.
Channel Dimension
Bankfull Area 14.4 18.5 20.9 22.6
(SF)
Width/Depth Ratio 23.6 9.4 14.7 23.1
Channel Pattern
Meander Width N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ratio ~
Sinuosity 1.1 1.0 1.0 11
Vertical Stability
Bank Height Ratio 1.6 2.1 1.4 1.8
(BHR)
Entrenchment >7.2 3.7 >6.5 3.0
Ratio (ER)
Evolution E-G-F-C-E E-G-F-C-E E-G-F-C-E E-G-F-C-E
Scenario
Simon Evolution
Stage IV - V VI IV - V IV - V
Notes:
1. N/A: Meander Width Ratio and Sinuosity not measured because channel has been straightened.
2. Simon Channel Evolution see Figure 33.
3. Values in this chart are rounded and therefore may differ slightly from actual values.
4. All values re resented are based on one data Dint.
3.2.2 Bank Erodibility Hazard Index and Near Bank Stress Measurements
Sediment loading was estimated for all eleven project reaches comprising Big Cedar Creek, UT1 and
UT2 using BEHI and Near Bank Stress index (NBS) measurements. Results from this analysis are
summarized in Table 3.5, and field sheets containing the raw data can be found in Appendix C.
Baker Engineering estimates that Big Cedar Creek, UT1, and UT2 are contributing 220 tons/year, 51
tons/year, and 31 tons/year of sediment from bank erosion, respectively. On a reach-wide scale, UT2
and Reaches 2 and 3 of Big Cedar Creek reported the highest potential loading of sediment from hank
erosion with 31 tons/year, 74 tons/year, and 83 tons/year, respectively. UT2 and Reach 2 of Bi~~
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 3-10
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
~
~

' Cedar also reported the highest sediment loading when erosion rates were standardized by stream
length, resulting in a more valid comparison of erosion rates per linear foot of stream channel per
reach; UT2 reported 1.96 ft3/LF of sediment loading from bank erosion and Reach 2 of Big Cedar
' Creek reported 1.48 ft3/LF. Reaches 1, 3, 5, and 6 of Big Cedar Creek and Reach 4 of UT1 reported
moderate to moderate high sediment loading with values of 0.91 ft3/LF, 0.84 ft3/LF, 0.88 ft3/LF, 0.85
ft3/LF, and 0.74 ft3/LF, respectively. Bank erosion on many of these reaches are a result of minimal
' floodplain access from channel incision, limited bank vegetation, trampled banks from frequent cattle
access, and/or high bank stress from riffles located within tight meander bends.
Minimal bank erosion and sediment loading was observed at Reach 4 of Big Cedar Creek and
' Reaches 1, 2, and 3 of UT1 due to ample floodplain access and surface protection along the bank in
the form of bedrock, boulders and dense root mass.
Table 3.5 Sediment Loading Estimate from BEHI
Big Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
teach ft ~ILF Tests/;year
Big Cedar Creek Reach 1 0.91 15
Big Cedar Creek Reach 2 1.48 74
Big Cedar Creek Reach 3 0.84 83
Big Cedar Creek Reach 4 0.28 7
Big Cedar Creek Reach 5 0.88 21
Big Cedar Creek Reach 6 0.85 20
Total 220
Reach. R /LF Tons/year
UTl Reach 1 0.15 13
UTl Reach 2 0.12 4
UT1 Reach 3 0.17 9
UTl Reach 4 0.74 25
Total 51
Reach ft /LF Tons/year
UT2 1.96 31
Total 31
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 3-11
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

3.3 Bankfull Verification
Baker Engineering engaged several methods to verify the bankfull stage and discharge of the restoration reach of
Big Cedar Creek. Initially, when collecting data points for the topographic survey, physical indicators of bankfull
stage were marked and measured. Estimates of discharge flow rates were made by using survey data,
mathematical equations, and regional data. Each method reinforces the ultimate conclusion of a bankfull
discharge.
Bankfull stage on each reach was identified in the field; indicators included a break in slope, a flat depositional
feature, and a consistent scour line. Surveyed cross sections with bankfull indicators were plotted on the North
Carolina Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999) as shown in Figure 3.4. The bankfull cross sectional areas
consistently plotted slightly below the regional curve; however, all were within the 95% confidence interval. This
indicates that the bankfull stages selected in the field were comparable with that of other Piedmont streams of
similar drainage area. The discrepancies between the regional curve and the field bankfull calls were largest in
reaches with smaller drainage areas and smaller in reaches with larger drainage areas. This could be because the
regional curve is based primarily on data from higher order streams. It is also important to note that variations in
channel geometry, or stream types, are not accounted for in the regional curve. For example, the regional curves
only include stable stream types. Channel slope, valley type, channel type, and sediment supply, as well as
information gained from the regression and Manning's equations were all considered during office verification of
the field data.
3.4 Bankfull Discharge
Manning's equation was used to calculate a bankfull discharge at representative riffle cross sections for each
reach. The Manning's roughness coefficient was individually selected for each reach based on factors including
channel bed material, the presence of small shrubs and grasses on the banks, and stream type. Bankfull discharge
ranged from 119 cfs to 249 cfs on the mainstem and 48 to 65 cfs on UT2, with variations attributable to the
drainage area and variations in the estimate bankfull stage. Bankfull flow estimates for UT1 ranged from 61 cfs
to 107 cfs. The estimated bankfull discharges were plotted on the regional curve as shown in Figure 3.4.
For further verification of these discharges, the NC USGS rural regression equation was used to estimate the 1.25,
1.5, and 2-year discharge. A USGS gage station with adequate peak flow data was not available for analysis near
this site. The generally accepted recurrence interval of a bankfull event is between 1 and 2 years, and often
between approximately 1.25 and 1.5 years. The bankfull discharges calculated using Manning's equation
typically fall in the 1.25 to 1.5-year discharges predicted by the regression equation. These results indicate that
the estimated bankfull discharge range falls within the expected recurrence interval for bankfull events.
Table 3.6 summarizes the design discharge by reach.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 3-12
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 3.6 Bankfull Discharge Determination
Ri~~ C'~tLlr Crcr!: Rc~inrati^n 1'!a~l
DA Q, Rural Q~ USGS Regression Equation (cfs) Q, 1-D
'
D
i
~~
Stream
'~
Reach
(square
miles}
Regional
Curve (cfs}
.1.25 year
1.5 year
1.75 year Manning
s
Formula
(cfs) es
gn Q
{cfs)
L ~.~u It~_' iii I~~J ~ ?1=~ ?O4 ~ ICU
2 3.10 201 177 223 262 199 185
Big
Cedar 3 3.32 211 186 235 275 119 195
Creek 4 3.35 213 188 236 277 239 199
5 4.67 270 241 301 351 249 255
6 4.71 272 242 303 353 237 260
1 0.93 85 71 93 111 61 69

UT1 2 0.98 88 74 96 115 89 76
3 1.20 101 86 111 133 102 95
4 1.21 102 87 113 134 107 100
UT2 1 0.55 58 48 63 76 65 56
3.5 Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions
The habitat within and adjacent to the proposed project area, primarily consists of agricultural areas,
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest (mixed riparian community) and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest as
described by Schafale and Weakely (1990). The riparian areas ranged from relatively disturbed to very disturbed.
Examples of major disturbance include active livestock grazing and crop rotation. A general description of each
community follows.
3.5.1 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
This ecological community is located on large floodplains on the mainstem of Big Cedar Creek, UT1,
and UT2 within the project area. The riparian buffer varied from narrow corridors of 5 to 15 feet in
width to broad corridors exceeding 50 feet in width. The dominant canopy species of the
piedmont/mountain Bottomland forest area included yellow poplar (Liriodendron n~lipifera),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), red maple (Ater ra~brum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), black willow (Salix nigra),
pecan (Carya illinoensis), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), and
black walnut (Juglans nigra). Understory species included box elder (Ater negnndo), yellow poplar,
sweetgum, red maple, flowering dogwood (Corms florida), ironwood (Carpintcs caro[iniana), red
mulberry (Mores rnbra), black cherry (Pra>nz~s serotina), alder (Alms sern~lc~ta), black willow,
elderberry (Sambuc«s canadensis), red bud (Cercis canadensis), winged elm (Ulmus alata),
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and winged sumac (IZhus copallinum). Woody vine and
herbaceous species consisted of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolica), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), grape (Vitis spp.), morning glory
(Ipomoea purpurea), blackberry (Riihus spp.), passionflower (Passiflorn incarnate), false nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica), Virginia dayflower (Comrraelina virginica), wingstem (Actinomeris
alternifolia), Indian strawberry (Duchesnea inclica), asters (Aster spp.), golden rod (Solidago spp.),
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 3-13
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

red clover (Trifolittm pretense), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), New York ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis),
partridge pea (Cassia fasciculate), arrow-leaf sida (Sida rhombifolia), jewelweed (Impatiens spp.),
lizard's tail (Satrrurus cernttus), beggars-ticks (Bidens spp.), water hemlock (Cicttta maculata),
tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), swamp smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides), lady's thumb
(Polygonum persicaria), hop sedge (Carex lupulina), shallow sedge (Carex lurida), flat sedge
(Cyperus strigosus), fescue (fescue spp.), and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium). Many
places are heavy with exotic invasive species that include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and Chinese privet
(Ligr~strum sinense), which are having an adverse affect on native vegetation.
3.5.2 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
This ecological community is located on the hillsides of the project area and is an upland transition
from the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest. The dominant overstory species of this upslope
area include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), loblolly pine
(Pines taeda), northern red oak (Quercus ntbra), white oak (Quercus alba), shag-bark hickory
(Carya ovata), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and
hackberry (Celtis occidentalis). Mid-canopy species include red bud (Cercis canadensis), red
mulberry (Morns rubra), green ash, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), service berry (Amelanchier arborea), and buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica). Herbaceous and
vine species consisted of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), grape (Vitis spp.), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), yellow root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
3.5.3 Agricultural Areas
Agricultural areas are adjacent to the existing stream buffer throughout the project site. Pastureland is
adjacent to the mainstem of Big Cedar Creek and UT2. The pastureland appears to be heavily grazed
with live stock granted unrestricted access to the creek. The plant species in the adjacent pastureland
are composed primarily of herbaceous species that included fescue (Fescue spp.), golden rod
(Solidago spp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), New
York ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), partridge pea (Cassia fasciculate), arrow-leaf sida (Sida
rhombifolia), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), horse nettle (Solanum carolinense), and soft rush
(Juncus effuses). Corn and cotton fields are adjacent to the degraded stream buffer on UT1.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 3-14
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS
Reference reach surveys are valuable tools to river designers. Reference reaches are stable rivers within a specific
valley type (Rosgen, 1998). Their dimension, pattern, and profile can be used as a template for design of a stable
stream in a similar valley type with similar bed material. In order to extract the morphological relationships
observed in a stable system, dimensionless ratios are developed from the surveyed reference reach. These ratios
can be applied to a stream design to allow the designer to `mimic' the natural, stable form of the target channel
type. Appropriate design stream types for the corresponding valley type and sediment regime were conceptually
assigned to the project streams prior to selecting reference reach streams (see Section 6.0 for detail).
' An undisturbed reference reach could not be found within the adjacent reaches or the same watershed as the
project site, so reference reaches in adjacent watersheds as well as those within a common physiographic province
were identified and reconnaissance performed. Among all of the systems considered, only LTT to Rocky Creek
was determined to be adequately stable and undisturbed to be considered a reference reach.
The UT to Rocky Creek reach is a small gravel bed stream within the Uwharrie National Forest. Baker conducted
a survey of approximately 300 LF, encompassing a pool and a riffle cross section. Surveyed cross sections,
' profile data, and photos are included in Appendix D. The bankfull discharge of the stream was estimated to be 85
cfs. Additionally, the NCDOT database was reviewed for applicable reference reach streams. Four additional
sites with similar slope and substrate were chosen as appropriate reference reaches for the Big Cedar Creek
restoration project including: Richland Creek, Morgan Creek and Spencer Creek. The locations of all the
reference reaches are shown in Figure 4.1.
While reference reaches can be used as an aid in designing channel dimension, pattern, and profile, there are
' limitations. The pattern for most reference reach quality streams is controlled by large trees and other woody
vegetation. Therefore, the pattern is not "free to form" based on fluvial processes, but instead is controlled by
vegetation. Parameters such as radius of curvature are especially affected by vegetation control, often resulting in
' very tight bends. Therefore, pattern ratios observed in reference reaches are often adjusted in the design criteria to
create more conservative designs that are less likely to erode after construction, before the permanent vegetation
is established.
A summary of the reference data is provided in Table 4.1

1
1

BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 4-1
1

Table 4.1 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Bie Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
UT Ito Rod.~~ 5peneer {:reek Riehland:C'~reek Alorgan IVreek
a3reek ' ` H
Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n*
1. Stream T e E4b N/A E4/C4 N/A C4 N/A C4 N/A
2. Drainage Area -square 1.05 /A 0.50 /A 1.00 /A 8.35 N/A
miles
3. Bankfull Width whkf -feet 12.2 1 8.7 1 16.2 16.7 2 33.2 2
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dhkr) 1.3 1 1.2 1 0.9 0.9 2 2.3 2
- feet
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d 9.1 1 7.3 1 18.0 18.6 2 14.1 2
ratio)
6. Cross sectional Area (Ahk~) ]6.3 1 10.6 1 15.0 15.5 2 75.1 2
- SF
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity 5.5 N/ N/P N/ N/P N/ 6.6 N/A
vnkr - f s
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qhk,) - 85 N/ N/P N/ N/P N/ 524.0 N/A
cfs
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dm,,k,) 1.8 1 1.9 1 1.4 1.5 2 2.8 2
- feet
10. d,~b / do ratio 1.3 1 1.6 1 1.6 1.7 2 1.2 2
11. Low Bank Height to d,~b~ 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 2 1.0 2
Ratio
12. Floodprone Area Width 72.4 1 228.5 1 50 53 2 77.5 2
w~ ~ -feet
13. Entrenchment Ratio 6.0 1 26.3 1 3.0 3.3 2 2.3 2
(ER)
14. Meander len th Lm -feet N/A N/A 54.0 196.0 2 90 94 2 N/P N/P
15. Ratio of meander length N/A N/A 6.2 22.5 2 5.5 5.7 2 N/P N/P
to bankfull width (L,,,/wbw)
16. Radius of curvature (R~) - N/A N/A 5.4 22.1 5 14.3 26.1 3 N/P N/P
feet
17. Ratio of radius of N/A N/A 0.6 2.5 5 0.9 1.6 3 N/P N/P
curvature to bankfull width
( /w )
18. Belt width whi, -feet N/A N/A 24.0 52.0 2 25 40 3 N/P N/P
19. Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A 2.8 6.0 2 1.5 2.4 3 N/P N/P
(w ~'~' )
20. Sinuosity (K) Stream 1.1 N/A 1.1 N/A 1.2 N/ N/P N/A
Len th/ Valle Distance
21. Valley Slope -feet per 0.0261 N/A 0.0139 N/A 0.0136 N/A N/P N/A
foot
22. Channel Slope (s~n;,,,~ti) - 0.0235 N/A 0.0132 N/A 0.0133 N/ 0.0070 N/A
feet er foot
23. Pool Slope (sp~~,i) -feet per 0.0 0.0037 1 0.0001 2 0.00 0.0014 4 0.0001 1
foot
24. Ratio of Pool Slope to 0.0 0.15 1 0.01 2 0.00 0.11 4 0.01 1
Average Slope (spool /
s )
25. Maximum Pool Depth 2.2 1 2.5 1 2.5 1 4.1 1
d „~,i -feet
26. Ratio of Pool Depth to 1.6 1 2.1 1 2.8 1 1.8 1
Average Bankfull Depth
(d oo /de )
27. Pool Width w ~,~,i -feet 10.9 1 8.4 1 11.1 1 25.9 1
28. Ratio of Pool Width to 0.9 1 1.0 1 0.7 1 0.8 1
Bankfull Width (w oo / wb )
29. Pool Area (A~„~,i) -square 19.3 l 12.8 1 20.1 1 88.9 1
feet
30. Ratio of Pool Area to 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.3 1 1.2 1
Bankfull Area (A ~ Ab )
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 4-2
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

1

Table 4.1 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Bi Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
~T.'?~',t~ pocky ~cer Lreyek ~ltic~tat#tt tarrek -~ tk[eir Creels
' aCi-~ek U stream
31. Pool-to-Pool Spacing- 26.3 £51.3 4 13.0 46.5 5 37.3 95.8 3 146.0 277.0 2
feet
32. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool 2.2 6.7 4 1.5 5.3 5 2.3 5.8 3 4.4 8.3 2
Spacing to Bankfull Width
(-/w
33. Riffle Slope (s~;~,t~) -feet .0606 0.0892 1 0.010 0.067 2 0.01.38 0.0413 5 0.01.4 0.024 2
er foot
34. Ratio of Riffle Slope to 2.6 3.8 1 0.8 5.1 2 1.0 3.1 5 2.0 3.4 2
Avera a Slo a (s • s )
Particle Size Distribution of Riff le Material
Material ds„ Coarse Gravel Medium Gravel Ver Coarse Gravel Very Fine Gravel
d,~; - mm <0.063 0.06 6.0 N/P
ds - mm 2.4 3 N/P 1.2
ds„ - mm 22.6 8.6 45.0 3
dH4 - mm 120 77 125.0 77
d~,5 - mm 256 180 N/P 800
Notes:
NC Department of Transportation, Reference Reach Database
N/A: Channel was straight - no pattern
N/P: Data was not provided in the NCDOT reference reach database
Values in this chart are rounded and therefore may differ slightly from actual values.
n* -This column re resents the number of data oints used where a ran a or mean is s ecified.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 4-3

5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in
accordance with the provisions on Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent federal
regulations. Wetlands have been identified by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (33 CFR 328.3(b) and 40 CFR 230.3 (t)).
Following an in-office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, NRCS soil survey, and USGS
quadrangle map, a field survey of the project area was conducted to delineate wetlands and waters of the U. S.
The project area was examined utilizing the jurisdictional definition detailed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987). Supplementary information to further support wetland determinations was
found in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2) (Reed et. al., 1988).
A comprehensive field survey throughout the project area was conducted on August 14, 2006, to assess
vegetation, soils, and hydrology for determination of the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. There were no areas
within the project boundary that displayed true wetland characteristics. There is one emergent wetland adjacent to
the project area that will not be impacted. Therefore, no wetland monitoring is required.
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. PAGE 5-1
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

6.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
1

t
1
t
This section discusses the design criteria selected for stream restoration on the Big Cedar Creek project site.
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The specific goals for the restoration project are as follows:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions on the Big Cedar Creek project site.
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections between the streams and their floodplains.
• Improve the water quality in the Big Cedar Creek and Rocky River watersheds.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
The primary objective of the Big Cedar Restoration project is to accelerate the channel evolutionary process by
constructing channels with stable cross sections, increased sinuosity, and access to the floodplain at bankfull
stage. Flood attenuation, increased groundwater infiltration, and alleviation of bank stress will result from
providing floodplain access. The removal of cattle from direct access with the restored reaches will also be
accomplished. Invasive vegetative species removal efforts and reforestation of the riparian buffer with native
species will complement the restoration of Big Cedar Creek, UT1, and UT2. Existing native trees will be
preserved onsite wherever feasible.
6.2 Design Criteria Selection for Stream Restoration
Selection of natural channel design criteria is based on a combination of approaches including review of reference
reach databases, regime equations, and evaluation of results from past projects. In the case of Big Cedar Creek,
old meander scars were prevalent and allowed for a more historical replication of alignment.
Selection of a general restoration approach, or a Rosgen Priority level, was the first step in selecting design
criteria at the Big Cedar Creek site. The approach was based on the reach's potential for restoration as determined
during the site assessment. Design criteria for the proposed stream concept were selected based on the range of
the reference data and the desired performance of the proposed channel. The developed design criteria were then
compared to past projects built with similar conditions. Ultimately, these sites provide the best pattern and
dimension ratios because they reflect site conditions after construction. While most reference reaches are in
mature forests, restoration sites are in floodplains with little or no mature woody vegetation. This lack of mature
woody vegetation severely alters floodplain processes and stream bank conditions. If past ratios did not provide
adequate stability or bedform diversity, they are not used. Conversely, if past project ratios created stable
channels with optimal bedform diversity, they will be incorporated into the design.
Following the initial application of design criteria, detailed refinements were made to accommodate the existing
valley morphology and to promote natural channel adjustment following construction. The design philosophy
employed at the Big Cedar Creek site was to use conservative design parameter values based on reference reach
data and lessons learned from past projects. This allows the project to evolve in a positive direction as the
permanent vegetation becomes established. The proposed stream types for the project are summarized in Table
6.1.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC. PAGE 6-1
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 6.1 Project Design Stream Types
13i~~ C~~1ar ('reek Resl~~rati~~n Pl,in
Proposed
Stream Reach Stream Rationale
Type
Priority 2 restoration will be used to raise the bed elevation and allow
reconnection of the channel and floodplain downstream. A floodplain bench will
be excavated adjacent to the channel to dissipate flood water energy and a new
1 E/C4 channel will be excavated in connection with this new floodplain. This technique
will increase sinuosity, pool development, and reestablish connection with a
floodplain. Native revegetation will improve habitat and stabilize the banks.
Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity, pool development, and reestablish
2 E/C4 connection with the historic floodplain. Native revegetation will improve habitat
and stabilize the banks.
Big Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity, pool development, and reestablish
Cedar 3 E/C4 connection with the historic floodplain. Native revegetation will improve habitat
Creek and stabilize the banks.
Mainstem Priority 2 restoration will facilitate the transition between the constructed channel
and the existing downstream channel (at the culvert elevation under the railway).
4 E/C4 The channel will meander, dropping grade to disconnect it from the historic
floodplain gradually in order to meet the existing channel elevation. A floodplain
bench will be excavated adjacent to the channel to dissipate flood water energy.
5 B3/lc Preservation will protect the existing mature forested buffer and stable stream
channel from any potential future impacts.
Enhancement level II including installation of structures and stabilization of
6 F3/1 stream banks will halt erosion and help improve channel dimension. Native
revegetation of the floodplain will improve habitat and stabilize the banks.
Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity, pool development, and reestablish
1 C4 connection with the floodplain. Native revegetation will improve habitat and
stabilize the banks.
Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity, pool development, and reestablish
2 B4c connection with the floodplain. Native revegetation will improve habitat and
stabilize the banks. Rosgen Priority 1 A S stream type would be a priority 3.
UT1
Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity, pool development, and reestablish
3 C4 connection with the floodplain. Native revegetation will improve habitat and
stabilize the banks. Rosgen Priority 1
Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity, pool development, and reestablish
4 B4c connection with the floodplain. Native revegetation will improve habitat and
stabilize the banks. Rosgen Priority 1
Priority 2 restoration will be used to raise the bed elevation and allow
reconnection of the channel and floodplain downstream for the first 152 LF. A
floodplain bench will be excavated adjacent to the channel to dissipate flood water
energy. For the remained of the reach the channel will meander out into the
UT2 1 E/C4 historic floodplain. Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity, pool
development, and reestablish connection with the floodplain. Native revegetation
will improve habitat and stabilize the banks. Priority 2 restoration will facilitate
the transition between the constructed tributary and the relocated Big Cedar
Creek.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC. PAGE 6-2
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

t 6.3 Design Parameters
The primary objective of the stream restoration effort is to design and construct a stream with stable dimension,
pattern, and profile that has access to its floodplain at bankfull flows. The proposed design for Big Cedar Creek
Reaches 1 through 4; UT1 Reaches 1 through 4; and, UT2, is shown in Figure 6.1. Please note that proposed
reach breaks vary slightly from existing reach breaks. While existing reach breaks were made based on changes
' in existing channel geometry and morphology, proposed reach breaks were made based on changes in proposed
restoration techniques.
The design rationale and design parameters for all of the design reaches are presented below.
' Dimension
Riffle cross sections were designed to carry the bankfull flow and to transport sediment delivered by the
watershed. All flows greater than bankfull are transported on the adjacent floodplain. The low range of
width to depth ratios was chosen for C-type channels and a higher range of width to depth ratio was chosen
for the E-type channels. Side slopes for all constructed channels range from 2:1 to 3:1 to lower the risk of
' erosion and to aid in the establishment of vegetation. Using conservative channel dimension values allows
the constructed channel to narrow over time.
Typical cross sections for each reach are shown on the plan sheets.
Pattern
The proposed channel alignment will result in an overall increase sinuosity on Big Cedar Creek, UT1 and
UT2.
Meander width ratios for the project range from 2.1 to 6.6 times the bankfull width. Higher meander width
ratios were incorporated into the design to lessen slope and decrease shear stress. In areas where the valley
' is narrow, the meander width ratio and sinuosity necessarily decreases. In these areas energy is dissipated
through vertical drops and the associated pools. Plan views of the main channel and unnamed tributaries
are shown on the attached plan sheets.
' Radii of curvature have been designed throughout the project to fall into the range of approximately 2 to 3.5
times the channel's proposed bankfull width. Radius of curvature ratios in this range were chosen based on
past project performance to minimize the risk of meander bend failure prior to vegetative root mass
establishment while promoting the maintenance of preferred pool depth.
Profile/Bedform
' Bedform will be diversified throughout the project through facet development (riffle, run, pool, glide, and
step-pool) mimicking those characteristic of the reference reaches. Reach slopes were designed to be
appropriate for the channel type and to provide adequate sediment transport capacity and competency.

Riffles throughout the design reaches are typically between 1.2 and 3.0 times the average slope of the
channel. The maximum pool depth will be constructed from the meander curve apex to a point one-third of
the distance along the profile from the apex to the head of the next downstream riffle, or two-thirds of the
distance along the profile from the tail of riffle to the downstream head of riffle (Copeland et al, 2001). All
elevation change will occur over the riffles and step structures; pools were designed with 0% slope to
ensure constructability. Additionally, the longitudinal profile was optimized in conjunction with structure
placement for aquatic habitat.
6.3.1 Design Reaches
A stable cross section will be achieved by widening the channel and increasing the width/depth ratio.
C/E type channels and Bc channels will be implemented throughout the Priority land Priority 2
restoration reaches; the sinuosity will be increased through the C/E sections by adding meanders and
length to the channel. Grade control at the bed will be provided by in-stream structures such as
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 63
1

constructed riffles, cross-vanes, and log step structures. These structures will improve habitat and
enhance bedform diversity. Bioengineering and in-stream structures will be used at the outside of
meander bends (including root wads, brush mattressing, vanes and cover logs) to promote additional
bank stability and improve habitat. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 present the proposed stream restoration design
criteria applied throughout the project area.
6.3.1.1 Big Cedar Creek Reach 1
This reach was designed as a Rosgen E/C4. This reach is a transition zone; the primary
design objective of this reach was to bring the channel up onto the historic floodplain as
quickly as possible. The lower end of C width/depth ratios was utilized and channel slope
was minimized to fulfill that goal. Sediment transport calculations required a channel slope
of 0.003 ft/ft in order to prevent degradation (see Section 6.4.2 for further detail). The
valley slope of 0.0039 ft/ft along this reach required a sinuosity of 1.3 in order to achieve
the required channel slope. A floodplain bench is proposed at bankfull elevations
consistently throughout the reach. A variety of in-stream structures will be installed in this
reach including log cross vanes, constructed riffles and log drops that will serve to provide
vertical grade control and improve habitat quality. Reach 1 terminates at Station 15+73
when the design is fully reconnected with the historic floodplain.
6.3.1.2 Big Cedar Creek Reach 2
Reach 2 is a Rosgen Priority 1 design. Channel dimensions were designed to E/C4
standards. The new channel alignment crosses back and forth across the existing channel,
utilizing the wide, flat floodplain on both the east and west overbank. Sediment transport
calculations required a channel slope of 0.0049 ft/ft in order to prevent degradation (see
Section 6.4.2 for further detail). The valley slope of 0.0061 ft/ft along this reach required a
sinuosity of 1.3 in order to achieve the 0.0048 ft/ft channel slope and prevent degradation.
6.3.1.3 Big Cedar Creek Reach 3
Reach 3 continues the full Priority 1 design. Channel dimensions were designed to E/C4
standards. The new channel alignment utilizes the west bank for the first half of the stream
and then crosses over the old channel to use the floodplain on the east overbank. The lower
section of this reach is designed to flow through a remnant channel (visible from the aerial
photograph). An ephemeral tributary is tied into the channel at Station 48+00.
6.3.1.4 Big Cedar Creek Reach 4
The final section of full restoration on Big Cedar Creek, Reach 4, marks the transition from
Priority 1 restoration to Priority 2 restoration. Channel dimensions were designed to E/C4
standards. The proposed alignment meanders and uses log vane structures and construction
riffles near the reach terminus to lower the channel bed elevation to the box culvert
elevation under the railroad.
6.3.1.5 Big Cedar Creek Reach 5
This reach is approximately 435 LF and is to be preserved.
6.3.1.6 Big Cedar Creek Reach 6
This reach is approximately 969 LF and is an Enhancement level II design. Banks will be
sloped to 2:1 slopes, where feasible, and rock vanes will be installed to divert erosive forces
from newly stabilized slopes. Existing riffles will be enhanced through addition of large
rock, and single and double vane deflectors will be installed to narrow the channel in overly
wide sections. Upstream of where Big Cedar Creek crosses under Mount Zion Road, a
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC. PAGE 6-4
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

1
rock cross vane will be installed to center the thalweg as the stream enters the culvert.
Rock toe protection will be applied to the right bank.

1

6.3.1.7 UT2
UT2 is design as an E/C4 channel. The first 162 LF of UT2 consist of a forested floodplain
and will not be disturbed. Below the wood line, the design channel slope was minimized to
tie the designed floodplain bench into the existing floodplain as quickly as possible. The
proposed realignment meanders down the floodplain and joins Big Cedar Creek at the head
of a pool (Big Cedar Creek Station 16+25). Sediment transport calculations determined
that a design channel slope of 0.0071 ft/ft is necessary in order to prevent degradation (see
Section 6.4.2). The valley slope through this reach is 0.0183 ft/ft, and decreasing the
channel slope to 0.0071 ft/ft would create a channel with a sinuosity of 2.6. UT2's valley is
somewhat narrow and designing a channel with a meander width ratio higher than 4.2 was
not feasible. The design meanders the channel to the extent feasible, decreasing channel
slope as much as possible and producing a sinuosity of 1.2. Because the bankfull channel
width is only 13.0 feet, only constructed riffles and structures such as brush mattresses will
be installed along this reach to function as degradational control.
6.3.1.8 UTl Reach 1
1
1

1
1

1
Reach 1 begins at the upstream extent of the project and meanders down valley. The reach
was designed as an E/C4 channel with moderate sinuosity and low slope, 0.0078 ft/ft. The
low slope was designed to minimize earthwork and tie the proposed bankfull elevations
into the adjacent floodplain in the shortest stream length. Sediment transport calculations
determined that a design channel slope of 0.0038 ft/ft is necessary in order to prevent
degradation (see Section 6.4.2). The valley slope through this reach is 0.01 ft/ft, and
decreasing the channel slope to 0.0038 ft/ft would create a channel with a sinuosity of 2.6.
The design meanders the channel to the extent feasible given the fall and shape of the
valley, decreasing channel slope as much as possible and producing a sinuosity of 1.2.
Structures will be installed to establish grade control, brush mattresses and root wads will
be installed to protect the outside of meander bends. An existing intermittent tributary will
be tied in at proposed station 22+00. A proposed stream crossing defines the downstream
reach break for Reach 1.
6.3.1.9 UT1 Reach 2
The valley narrows in Reach 2 and the slope increases to accommodate the decrease in
floodplain area. For this reason, a B4c channel was designed with less sinuosity and higher
slope. This section does still have a moderate entrenchment ratio. The proposed stream
ties into the existing stream at proposed station 26+00 and meanders in the existing channel
to proposed station 31+00. The downstream reach break is defined by a change in valley
geomorphology.
6.3.1.10 UT1 Reach 3
Reach 3 meanders down valley and is the longest reach on UT1. The valley begins to
widen at the upstream extent of this reach and provides the opportunity to increase
sinuosity as well as the entrenchment ratio. This reach was designed as a C4 channel.
Sediment transport calculations determined that a design channel slope of 0.0091 ft/ft is
necessary in order to prevent degradation (see Section 6.4.2). The valley slope through this
reach is 0.014 ft/ft, and decreasing the channel slope to 0.0091 ft/ft would create a channel
with a sinuosity of 1.5. The design meanders the channel to the extent feasible, decreasing
channel slope as much as possible and producing a sinuosity of 1.2. A majority of this
reach will be excavated in the existing floodplain and offline of the existing stream. Reach
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 6-5

3 ties into the existing stream at station 44+50 and continues to meander in and out of the
existing stream to the end of Reach 3. A roadway drainage Swale, an intermittent tributary
and an ephemeral channel were tied into Reach 3, at stations 40+00, 46+60, and 49+30,
respectively. The downstream reach break is defined by a change in valley slope.
6.3.1.11 UTl Reach 4
Reach 4 is approximately 1,501 LF in total length, although only 993 LF of the channel is
within the conservation easement. Upstream of the railroad culvert, this channel was
designed as a high slope B4c channel with low sinuosity. This reach was designed to
transition from the original floodplain elevation to a new floodplain elevation. This section
does still have a moderate entrenchment ratio. An ephemeral channel was tied into the
reach at station 55+50. The existing stream crossing will be enhanced and preserved to
maintain access to adjacent farm fields.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 6-6 ,

1

1
Table 6.2 Geomorphic Characteristics of the Proposed Big Cedar Creek and UT2 Reaches
Bi Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
.liig CtKfar C:reekh7 aie~tem U'1'2
~liea~'i ': ~teitih'. '' ~estClr<~ . ~=Rieac`#i~ Reach 1 '
10+00 to 15+73 15+73 to 38+13 38+13 to 56+2 2 56+22 to 60+2 2 10+00 to16+OS
Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n*
1. Stream Type E/C4 N/A E/C4 N/A E/C4 N/ E/C4 N/A E/C4 N/A
2. Drainage Area 2 3 2
3 N/A 2
3 1
3 N/A 3.1 3.3 N/ 3.3 3.35 N/A 0.54 0.55 N/A
- miZ . . .
3. Bankfull Width 20.0 1 23.0 1 24.4 1 26.0 1 13.0 1
wnk - ft
4. Bankfull Mean 2 0 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 11 1
De th dnkr - ft
5. Width/Depth
10.0 1
10.0 1
11.6 1
11.8 1
11.8 l
Ratio w/d ratio
6. Cross sectional
39
0 1
52
7 1
52
1 1
57
2 ]
14
3 1
Area A ft2
nke - . . . . .
7. Bankfull Mean
Velocity (vnkr) - 3.8 N/A 3.5 N/A 3.7 N/ 3.5 N/A 3.9 N/A
ft/sec
8. Bankfull
Discharge (Qnk~) - 150 N/A 185 N/A 195 N/ 199 N/A 56 N/A
ft;/sec
9. Bankfull Max 2 8 1 3.3 1 3.0 1 3.0 1 1.4 1
De th dmnkr - ft
10. dmnkr /duke 1.4 1 1.4 1 1.4 1 1.4 1 1.3 1
ratio
l t. Low Bank
Height to dmnkr 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1
ratio
12. Floodprone
Area Width (wrpa) 87 ] 100+ 1 100+ 1 94+ 1 74+ 1
- feet
13. Entrenchment 4.4 1 4.3+ 1 4.1+ 1 3.6+ 1 5.7+ 1
Ratio ER
14. Meander 281 285 2 197 312 13 187 313 11 207 247 2 98 142 6
len th Lm - ft
15. Ratio of
meander length to 14.1 14.3 2 8.6 13.6 13 7.7 12.8 11 8.0 9.5 2 7.5 10.9 6
bankfull width
Lm/wnkr
16. Radius of 50 70 3 44 77 15 44 83 13 52 53 3 23 37 7
curvature R~ - ft
17. Ratio of radius
of curvature to 2 5 3.5 3 1.9 3.3 IS 1.8 3.4 13 2.0 2.0 3 1.8 2.8 7
bankfull width (R~
/ wnkr
18. Belt width 103 132 3 73 144 14 52 114 12 58 91 3 46 55 7
~'ni~ - ft
19. Meander
Width Ratio 5.2 6.6 3 3.2 6.3 14 2.1 4.7 12 2.2 3.5 3 3.5 4.2 7
~'ni/Wnkr
20. Sinuosity (K)
stream length / 1.3 N/A 1.3 N/A 1.1 N/ ].1 N/A 1.2 N/A
vane len th
21. Valley Slope - 0.0039 N/A 0.0061 N/A 0.0077 N/ 0.0109 N/A 0.0]83 N/A
feet er foot
22. Average
Channel Slope 0.0030 N/A 0.0048 N/A 0.0068 N/ 0.0098 N/A 0.0150 N/A
(Snkr) -feet per
foot
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-7
' BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 6.2 Geomorphic Characteristics of the Proposed Big Cedar Creek and UT2 Reaches
Bi Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
gig ,L`et3a~:fxe!~ii d~laiarstem ~}~1~2 .:
l2eurh'! :: ~ ~; Z.~a~h':2`. -':.., Reaeh~ `_ ilieac'h1
10+00 to 15+73 15+73 to 38+13 38+13 to 56+22 56+22 to 60+22 10+00 to16+05
Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n*
23. Pool Slope
(s~,,,,,,) -feet per 0.0 4 0.0 15 0.0 13 0.0 4 0.0 8
foot
24. Ratio of Pool
Slope to Average 0.0 4 0.0 15 0.0 3 0.0 4 0.0 8
Sloe S ,,,,, / Shkr
125. Maximum
Pool Depth (dF~,,,) 6.5 1 5.2 1 5.5 1 5.0 1 3.6 1
- ft
26. Ratio of Pool
Depth to Average

Bankfull Depth 3.3 1 2.3 1 2.6 1 2.3 1 3.3
d ~,~i/dnkr
27. Pool Width
25.0 1 33.6 1 35.5 1 40.0 1 20.1 1

28. Ratio of Pool
Width to Bankfull 1.3 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1
Width w ,,,,, / wnkr
29. Pool Area
A ,,,,, - ft2 56.8 1 86.8 1 97.0 1 102.5 1 36.2 1
30. Ratio of Pool
Area to Bankfull 1.5 1 1.6 1 1.9 1 1.8 1 2.5 1
Area A ~,,,,/Ankr
31. Pool-to-Pool

S acin - - ft 150 205 4 110 223 15 83 185 13 105 112 2 62 99 7
32. Ratio of Pool-
to-Pool Spacing to

Bankfull Width (p- 7 5 10.3 4 4.8 9.7 15 3.4 7.6 13 4.0 4.3 2 4.8 7.6 7
/~'hkr
33. Riffle Slope
(s~;r,~~) -feet per 0.0073 0.0079 4 0.0092 0.0144 15 0.0080 0.0169 13 0.0119 0.0237 4 .0230 0.0504 8
foot
34. Ratio of Riffle
Slope to Average 2.4 2.6 4 1.9 3.0 15 1.2 2.5 13 1.2 2.4 4 1.5 3.4 8
Sloe s~;nt~/ shkr
n* -This column represents the number of data points used where a range or mean is specified.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-8
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

1
1

1

1

Table 6.3 Geomorphic Characteristics of the Proposed UTl Reaches
Bi Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
,. . Lei.
..:~12e~c1~'i ` Reec4 Z ., ,fietati 3 Rest 4.
10+00 to 22+76 22+76 to 33+O 1 33+O1 to 52+5 5 52+55 to 67+56
Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n*
1. Stream T e E/C4 N/A B4c N/A C4 N/A B4c N/A
2. Draina e Area - mi 0.70 0.83 N/A 0.83 0.93 N/A 0.93 1.13 N/A 1.13 1.20 N/A
3. Bankfull Width 13.0 1 15.0 1 15.0 1 16.0 1
~'nkr - ft
4. Bankfull Mean 1.2 1 1.1 1 1
2 1 1
3 1
De th dhkr - ft . .
5. Width/Depth Ratio 10.8 1 13.6 1 12.5 1 12
3 1
w/d ratio .
6. Cross sectional Area
15
3
1
16
8
1
17
3
1
20
0
1

z
Anke - ft
.
.
.
.
7. Bankfull Mean 4.5 N/A 4.5 N/A 5.5 N/A 5.0 N/A
Velocit vhkr - ft/sec
8. Bankfull Discharge
Qhkr - fY /sec 69.0 N/A 76.0 N/A 95.0 N/A 100.0 N/A
9. Bankfull Max Depth 1.7 1 1.5 1 1
5 1 1
7 1
dmbkf - ft . .
10. dmnkr /dnkr ratio ] .4 1 1.4 1 1.3 1 1.3 1
11. Low Bank Height to 1 0 1 1.0 1 1
0 1 1
0 1
dmhk( Cat10 . .
12. Floodprone Area 73.8 1 85.5 1 85.2 1 87
0 1
Width wt ~ -feet .
13. Entrenchment Ratio 5.7 1 5.7 1 5.7 1 4
5 1
ER .
14. Meander length 140 157 12 134 199 9 127 198 17 133 168 5
Lm - ft
15. Ratio of meander
length to bankfull width 10.8 12.1 12 8.9 13.3 9 8.5 13.2 17 8.3 10.5 5
I-m/Whkl'
16. Radius of curvature 28 40 14 30 48 l 1 30 50 19 32 50 9
R~ - ft
17. Ratio of radius of
curvature to bankfull 2.2 3.1 14 2.0 3.2 11 2.0 3.3 19 2.0 3.1 9
width R~ / wnkr
18. Belt width (whit) - 29 64 13 30 45 10 22 65 18 31 47 7
ft
19. Meander Width 2 2 49 13 2.0 0
3 10 1
5 4
3 18 1
9 2
9 7
Ratio Wblt/Whkl' . . . . .
20. Sinuosity (K)
stream length /valley 1.3 N/A 1.0 N/A 1.2 N/A 1.0 N/A
len th
21. Valley Slope -feet 0.01 N/A 0.0131 N/A 0.014 N/A 0.0167 N/A
er foot
22. Average Channel
Slope (Shkt) -feet per 0.0078 N/A 0.0128 N/A 0.0118 N/A 0.0161 N/A
foot
23. Pool Slope (s~,,,,~) - 0.0 14 0.0 1 l 0
0 19 0
0 10
feet er foot . .
24. Ratio of Pool Slope
to Average Slope (S~„~,i / 0.0 14 0.0 11 0.0 19 0.0 10
St+k
25. Maximum Pool

De th d „~,i - ft 3.0 1 3.5 1 3.3 1 4.0 1
26. Ratio of Pool Depth
to Average Bankfull 2.5 1 3.2 1 2.8 1 3.1 1
De th d ,,,,i/dnkr
27. Pool Width (w~,„~,i)

- ft 19.0 1 27.0 1 22.0 1 23.0 1
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-9
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 6.3 Geomorphic Characteristics of the Proposed UTl Reaches
Bi Cedar Creek Restoration Plan
U'~ 1
~lte~cha :.: Reach 2 , ` ~ . ?Reach`~j teach
10+00 to 22+76 22+76 to 33+O 1 33+O1 to 52+5 5 52+55 to 67+56
Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n*
28. Ratio of Pool
Width to Bankfull 1.5 1 1.4 1 1.5 1 1.4 1
Width W ool ~ Whk(
29. Pool Area (A ~,,,,) -
r
ft~ 31.1 1 39.3 1 37.4 1 50.3 1
30. Ratio of Pool Area
to Bankfull Area 2.0 1 2.3 1 2.2 1 2.5 1
A ~,r~t/Ahkr
31. Pool-to-Pool

S acin - - ft 63 115 13 62 140 11 61 137 19 64 105 9
32. Ra[io of Pool-to-
Pool Spacing to

Bankfull Width (p- 4.8 8.8 13 4.1 9.3 11 4.1 9.1 19 4.0 6.6 9
~Whkf
33. Riffle Slope (sr;t~~~)

- feet er foot 0.0115 0.023 14 0.0192 0.028 11 0.0175 0.0354 19 0.0222 0.0301 12
34. Ratio of Riffle
Slope to Average Slope 1.5 2.9 14 1.5 2.1 11 1.5 3.0 19 1.4 1.9 12
Sri(tlc~ ShkC
6.4 Sediment Transport
6.4.1 Methodology
The purpose of sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time, but adjusts within its stable limits. The
overriding assumption is that the project reach should be transporting all the sediment delivered from
upstream sources, thereby being a "transport" reach and classified as a Rosgen "C" or "E" type
channel.
Sediment transport is typically assessed by computing channel competency, capacity, or both.
Sediment transport competency is a measure of force (lbs/ft2) that refers to the stream's ability to
move a given grain size. Quantitative assessments include shear stress, tractive force, and critical
dimensionless shear stress. Since these assessments help determine a size class that is mobile under
certain flow conditions, they are most important in gravel bed studies in which the bed material
ranges in size from sand to cobble (of which only a fraction are mobile during Bankfull conditions).
Project reaches were separated for sediment transport analyses based on median particle size and
channel slope and dimension. Because the riffle materials were coarse for each of the project reaches,
it was determined that these larger particles were controlling sediment transport in the system, and so
sediment transport competency was analyzed.
6.4.2 Sediment Transport Analysis & Discussion
Sediment transport competency is measured in terms of the relationship between critical and actual
depth at a given slope, and occurs when the critical depth produces enough shear stress to move the
largest (d„H,) subpavement particle. The boundary shear stress curve used is shown in Figure 6.2.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-10
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 6.4 Existing Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -
Big Cedar Creek and UT2
13i~~ C'cdar C'r~ck Rcst~~rati~~n Pl,u~
Parameter Big Cedar Creek Mainstem UT2
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 1
l3anlclull Dischar~~~, (~ (cfs) l~(1 1ti~ l~» I~l~) ~(>
Bankfull Area (square feet) 36.7 39.7 32.3 47.1 10.8
Mean Bankfull Velocity (cfs) 4.1 4.7 5.9 4.2 5.2
Bankfull Width, W (feet) 16.3 22.0 19.5 29.6 9.2
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet) 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.2
Width to Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/
foot) 7.1 12.2 11.5 18.5 7.7
Wetted Perimeter (feet) 20.9 25.6 22.9 32.8 11.6
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet) 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.4 0.9
Channel Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0080 0.0077 0.0045 0.0088 0.0215
Boundary Shear Stress, T (Ibs/ft`') 0.88 0.72 0.40 0.79 1.25
Subpavement Di~,~, (mm) 64 67 45 70 64
Largest Moveable Particle (mm)
per Shield's Curve (Rosgen Curve 70(250) 55(190) 30(100) 65(200) 100(300)
Critical Depth (feet) 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.2 0.4
Critical Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0028 0.0062 0.0038 0.0066 0.0065
Table 6.4 summarizes the existing sediment competence calculations for Big Cedar Creek and UT2.
Reach 1 of Big Cedar has an existing depth of 2.3 ft and an existing slope of 0.008 ft/ft. The existing
conditions are in excess of the depth and slope required to move the D100, 0.8 ft and 0.0028 ft/ft,
respectively. Reach 1 is therefore capable of moving a much larger particle size than the D100 and is
degradational. This is reflected in the channel dimension and classification; Reach 1 is classified as a
E4/1. The channel is vertically stable due to bedrock, however, it is laterally unstable and eroding.
Reach 2, and B4/lc-type channel, also has an existing depth and slope in excess of that required to
move the D100, however, the difference between existing and critical is not as great as seen in Reach
1. Lateral bars were observed throughout Reach 2 which suggests that although the channel has the
competence to move the material through the reach, the channel lacks capacity and is unable to
transport sediment efficiently through a cross section. Reaches 3 and 4, both classified as C4/1-type
channels, have existing depths and slopes similar to that required to move the D100. These two
reaches are adequately transporting the sediment supplied to them. UT2 is deeper and has a steeper
slope than is required to move the D100. This is reflected in the degradational state of the channel.
UT2 is classified as a G4 and is vertically unstable.
Table 6.5 Proposed Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -
Big Cedar Creek and UT2
[3ig C'cdar C'rcek Rcst~~rati~~n Plan
Parameter Sig Cedar Creek Mainstem UT2
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach l
l3anktull Dischar~.;~, (~ (rCs) I~(l.O l~~ 1~)i 1~)9 >~~.0
Bankfull Area (square feet) 39.0 52.7 52.1 57.2 14.3
Mean Bankfull Velocity (cfs) 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.9
Bankfull Width, W (feet) 20.0 23.0 24.4 26.0 13.0
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet) 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.2 1.1
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-11
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 6.5 Proposed Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -
Big Cedar Creek and UT2
I3i~~ Cr~lar C'rcck Rcst~n;ili~m Pl,in
Parameter Big Cedar Creek Mainstem UT2
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 1
~~'i~lth to [)~pth Rati~~. ~~~ ~I ([cct
loot) IU.U 111.(1 I L.0 11.E 1 I.ti ~
Wetted Perimeter (feet) 24.0 27.6 28.7 30.4 15.2
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet) 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.9 0.9
Channel Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0030 0.0048 0.0068 0.0098 0.0150
Boundary Shear Stress, i (lbs/ft') 0.31 0.57 0.77 1.15 0.88
Subpavement D~~,,, (mm) 64.0 67.0 45.0 70.0 64
Largest Moveable Particle (mm)
per Shield's Curve (Rosgen Curve) 22.0
(80.0) 45.0
(100.0) 55.0
(150.0) 85.0
(275.0) 70.0
(220.0)
Critical Depth (feet) 2.1 2.3 1.0 1.0 0.5
Critical Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0032 0.00-19 (1.0031 ~ 0.0043 0.0071
Table 6.5 summarizes the proposed channel dimensions and critical depths and slopes given the
proposed conditions. Reach 1 and 2 both have depths and slopes similar to the critical values and are
competent to move the supplied sediment load without aggrading or degrading. Reach 3 is deeper
and steeper than the critical depths and slopes required to move the D100, and therefore, it is expected
to be degradational. Channel slope is set by decreased meander width ratios in this section of the
project and cannot be decreased. The width to depth ratio of the riffle cross sections were optimized
for channel constructability and therefore the depth was not changed. Degradational forces will be
addressed through structure placement and installation of constructed riffles. These features will
control vertical and horizontal stability so that the channel will not degrade down to bedrock as
observed currently in several sections of the channel. Reach 4 also has greater slope and depth than
required to transport supplied sediment. This reach is dedicated to dropping the proposed channel to
meet the existing channel elevation prior to going through the railroad culvert. Because of the
vertical and horizontal stability provided by log vanes and constructed riffles, degradation is not a
concern.
Table 6.6 Existing Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power - UT1
tii<~ Cc~lar Crcck Rc~turati~~n Plan
Parameter UTl
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
13ank1ull Dischar~~~. C~ (cCs) b~).U 7(~.O ~)i.U LU(l.U
Bankfull Area (square feet) 14.4 18.5 20.9 22.6
Mean Bankfull Velocity (cfs) 4.8 4.1 4.5 4.4
Bankfull Width, W (feet) 18.9 13.1 17.6 23.1
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet) 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.0
Width to Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/
foot) 23.6 9.4 14.7 231
Wetted Perimeter (feet) 20.5 15.9 20.0 25.1
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet) 0.7 1.2 1.0 0.9
Channel Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0116 0.014 0.0134 0.0145
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-12
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 6.6 Existing Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power - UT1
13ig <'c~lar ('rock Rcsl~uati~m Plan
Parameter UT1
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
13oun~ar~- Shear Stress, T (Ihs/ft') U.> 1 LU t i).ti7 O.~ L
Subpavement Di,~~ (mm) 45.0 64.0 64.0 64.0
Largest Moveable Particle (mm)
per Shield's Curve (Rosgen Curve 35
(125) 80
(250) 70
(225) 70
(200)
Critical Depth (feet) 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.5
Critical Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0057 0.0042 0.0091 0.0078
Table 6.6 summarizes the existing boundary conditions for UT1. All reaches on UT1 are
degradational and have slopes and mean depths greater than what is required to move the D100.
Most areas throughout UT1 are vertically stable due to a large amount of bedrock in the channel.
Table 6.7 Proposed Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power - UT1
t3i~~ C'c~lar C-rrrk Rcsturati~in Pla^
Parameter UTl
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
l3ankCull Dischar~c, (1 (rls) O~~.U 76.U ~)i.U lOU.U
Bankfull Area (square feet) 153 16.8 17.3 20.0
Mean Bankfull Velocity (cfs) 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.0
Bankfull Width, W (feet) 13.0 15.0 15.0 16.0
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet) 1.2 11 1.2 13
Width to Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/
foot) 10.8 13.6 12.5 123
Wetted Perimeter (feet) 15.4 17.2 17.4 18.6
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet) 1.0 1.0 LO 11
Channel Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0078 0.0128 0.0118 0.0161
Boundary Shear Stress, i (lbs/ft') 0.48 0.78 0.73 1.07
Subpavement D,,,,, (mm) 45 64 64 64
Largest Moveable Particle (mm)
per Shield's Curve (Rosgen
Curve) 35
(125) 60
(200) 55
(190) KO
(250)
Critical Depth (feet) 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.5
Critical Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0038 0.0054 0.0091 0.006
As shown in Table 6.7, the critical depth for the proposed cross section in each Reach of UT1 is less
than the design depth. This data indicates the proposed channel is adequately sized to carry the
supplied sediment load, but it will require grade control to protect the channel from degradation. As a
second check of sediment transport competency, boundary shear stress was compared to Shield's
curve -Figure 6.2 - to estimate the largest moveable particle. The Shield's curve predicts the
mobility of particles larger than the dl„~, observed in the subpavement. Both of these sediment
transport competency analyses confirm the ability of the design channel to transport the coarse
sediment load.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-13
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

6.5 In-Stream Structures
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the Big Cedar Creek site. Structures such as root wads,
constructed riffles, log vanes, and j-hooks will be used to stabilize the newly-restored stream. Wood structures
will be alternated with boulder structures on this site because of the material observed in the existing system. A
certain amount of wood will be generated through the construction of this project and will be available for use.
Table 6.8 summarizes the use of in-stream structures at the site.
Table 6.8 Proposed In-Stream Structure Types and Locations
13i~, ('c~lar Crcck IZCSIOI~aLllln Plan
Structure Type Location
Root Wad Outside bank of smaller radius meander bends.
Brush Mattress Outside bank of shorter arcs and larger radius meander bends.
Rock Cross Vane Reach 6 of Big Cedar to align stream velocity vectors with existing culvert
and step down bed elevation in a stable manner.
Constructed RifIle Through straight, steeper sections to provide grade control.
Rock or Log Vane In meander bends to turn water.
Cover Log In pools to provide habitat features.
Boulder or Log Sill For grade control and pool habitat.
Boulder Cluster For energy dissipation and habitat in long straight riffles.
Root Wad
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank in the outside of meander bends for the creation of
habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball of a tree plus a portion
of the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank by deflecting stream flows away from the bank. In
addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural support to the stream bank and habitat for fish
and other aquatic animals. They also serve as a food source for aquatic insects. Root wads will be placed
throughout the Big Cedar Creek project.
Brush Mattress
Brush mattresses are placed on bank slopes on the outside of meander bends for stream bank protection.
Layers of live, woody cuttings are wired together and staked into the bank. Brush mattresses help to
establish vegetation on the bank to secure the soil. Once the vegetation is established, the cover also
provides habitat for wildlife.
Cross Vane
Cross vanes are used to provide grade control, keep the thalweg in the center of the channel, and protect the
stream bank. Across vane consists of two rock or log vanes joined by a center structure installed
perpendicular to the direction of flow. This centering structure sets the invert elevation of the stream bed.
These structures will be placed in Big Cedar Creek in Reach 6 to align the velocity vectors with the existing
culvert.
Constructed Riffle
A constructed riffle consists of the placement of coarse bed material in the stream at specific riffle locations
along the profile. A buried log or rock boulders at the upstream and downstream end of riffles may be used
to control the slope through the riffle in steeper sections. The purpose of this structure is to provide grade
control and establish riffle habitat. Constructed riffles will be placed throughout all reaches. In the higher
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
PAGE 6-14 '

slope reaches, the constructed riffles and cross vanes will be intermixed to provide diversity of structure and
in-stream habitat.
Rock or Log Vane
A rock or log vane is used to protect the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can span one-
half to two-thirds the bankfull channel width. Vanes are located either upstream or downstream along a
meander bend and function to initiate or complete the redirecting of flow energies resulting in reduced near
bank shear stress and alignment maintenance. Vanes are located just downstream of the point where the
stream flow intercepts the bank at acute angles. In an effort to promote structural diversity, the proposed
restoration indicates a mixed use of rock and logs to construct vanes.
Cover Log
A cover log is placed in the outside of a meander bend to provide habitat in the pool area. The log is buried
into the outside bank of the meander bend; the opposite end extends through the deepest part of the pool and
may be buried in the inside of the meander bend, in the bottom of the point bar. The placement of the cover
log near the bottom of the bank slope on the outside of the bend encourages scour in the pool. This
increased scour provides a deeper pool for bedform variability. Cover logs will be used on all reaches.
Boulder or Log Sill
Boulder and log sills consist of either header stones and footer stones or header log and a footer log placed
in the bed of the stream channel, perpendicular to stream flow. The rocks or logs extend into the stream
banks on both sides of the structure to prevent erosion and bypassing of the structure. The rocks or logs are
installed flush with the channel bottom upstream of the rock or log. The footer rock or log is placed to the
depth of scour expected, to prevent the structure from being undermined. Rock and log weirs provide
bedform diversity, maintain channel profile, and provide pool and cover habitat.
Boulder Cluster Placement
Boulder cluster placement is proposed in areas between short riffles. While the short riffles act as grade
control, the boulder placement produces lateral and vertical flow diversity at low flows. At bankfull flows,
the boulders serve as energy dissipation features, adding to the overall bed roughness and providing local
downstream eddy microhabitat.
6.6 Soil Restoration
Soil composition is vitally important to the success of newly planted riparian vegetation. Technical specifications
will require the contractor to perform pre-construction soil tests to determine the existing soil composition. Soil
' amendments necessary to support the growth of proposed herbaceous and woody riparian species shall be added
prior to planting.
6.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Native riparian vegetation will be established in the restored stream buffer. Also, any areas of invasive vegetation
such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) will be managed so as
not to threaten the newly-established native plants within the conservation easement.
6.7.1 Stream Buffer Vegetation
Bare-root trees, live stakes, and permanent seeding will be planted within designated areas of the
conservation easement. A preferred 50-foot buffer measured from the top of banks (sometimes
slightly less and quite often, substantially more) will be established along the restored stream reaches.
In many areas, the combined buffer width for left and right banks will be in excess of 100 feet. Bare-
root vegetation will be planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre, or an 8-foot by 8-foot grid.
The proposed species to be planted are listed in Table 6.9. Planting of bare-root trees and live stakes
will be conducted during the first dormant season following construction. If construction activities
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-15
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

are completed in summer/fall of a given year, all vegetation will be installed prior to the start of the
growing season of the following calendar year.
Species selection for re-vegetation of the site will generally follow those suggested by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical
Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997). Tree species selected for stream restoration areas will be generally weakly
tolerant to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species are able to survive and grow in areas where
the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of time. Moderately tolerant species are
able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several months during the growing season.
Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or flooded for
extended periods during the growing season (USACE, 1997).
Observations will be made during construction regarding the relative wetness of areas to be planted.
Planting zones will be determined based on these observations, and planted species will be matched
according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Live stakes will be installed two to three feet apart using triangular spacing or at a density of 160 to
360 stakes per 1,000 square feet along the stream banks between the toe of the stream bank and
bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly different spacing.
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 6.9 lists the
species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used. A mixture is provided for floodplain
wetland and floodplain non-wetland areas. Mixtures will also include temporary seeding (rye grain or
browntop millet). The permanent seed mixture specified for floodplain areas will be applied to all
disturbed areas outside the banks of the restored stream channel and is intended to provide rapid
growth of herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat value. The species provided are deep-
rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream channels, providing long-term
stability.
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion.
These areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary
seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130
pounds per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop
millet, applied at a rate of 45 pounds per acre.
Table 6.9 Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species
13i~~ ('c~lar C'rrrk Rcsl~~ratiun Plan
Common Name Scientific Name Percent Planted by
Species Planting Density `r
Fooodplain Planting 'Lone
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 5% 34 stems per acre
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 10% 68 stems per acre
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylva~iica 20% 136 stems per acre
Black walnut .Iuglans fiigra 10% 68 stems per acre
Sycamore Platafaus occidentalis 15% 102 stems per acre
Willow oak Quercus phellos 7% 48 stems per acre
Swamp chestnut oak Quer-ctrs micha~~xii 15% 102 stems per acre
Blackgum Nyssa salvatica 8% 54 stems per acre
Paw paw Asin2i»a triloba 10% 68 stems per acre
Alternate Species
River birch Betula ~iigra
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-16
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 6.9 Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species
13i~~ C'~dar C'r~~l~ Rr.~turati~m Plan
Common Name Scientific Name Percent Planted by
Species Planting Density
Upland Planting Zone
Persimmon Diospyros virgiiTia~ia 5% 34 stems per acre
Tulip poplar Liriodendrori tulipifera 15% 102 stems per acre
Green ash Fraxinus pennsy[vauica 20% 136 stems per acre
Black walnut Juglaras jaigra 5% 34 stems per acre
Sugarberry Ce[tis laevigata 15% 102 stems per acre
Willow oak Quercus phellos 10% 68 stems per acre
Blackgum Nyssa salvatica 15% 102 stems per acre
Southern red oak Quercus falcata 10% 68 stems per acre
Flowering dogwood Cor~zus florida 5% 34 stems per acre
Alternate Species
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
Black haw viburnum Viburnum pruiTifolium
Redbud Cercis cmiadeusis
Live Stakes
Silky dogwood Cor~ius amomum 35% 56 to 126 stems per 1,000 SF
Silky willow Salix sericea 35% 56 to 126 stems per 1,000 SF
Elderberry Sambucus canaclensis 20% 32 to 72 stems per 1,000 SF
Black willow Salix nigra 10°Io 16 to 36 stems per 1,000 SF
Brush Mattresses
Silky dogwood Corpus amomum 40%
Silky willow Salix sericea 30%
Elderberry Sambucus caraadensis 30%
Note: Species selection may change due to availability at the time of planting.
Table 6.10 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Big C'~dar Crcck Rcsi~~rali~~n Plan
mmon Name Scientific Name Percent of
Mixture Seeding Density
(Ibs/acre)
Floodplain and Upland Areas
Virginia wild rye Elymus virgiiiiccis 20°10 3
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 10% 1.5
River oats Chasmanthum latifolium 5% 0.75
Soft rush Juncus effi~sus 15°l0 2.25
Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea 10% 1.5
Deertongue Dichathelium Clandestinum 15% 2.25
Common smartweed Yersicaria penjisylvanica 10% 1.5
Beggar's ticks Bidens foudosum 15% 2.25
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-17
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

Table 6.10 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
l3ig C'~~1ar Cr~ch Rc~t~~rati~~n Pl~ui
Common Name Scientific Name Percent of Seeding Density
Mixture (lbs/acre)
Note: Species selection may change due to availability at the time of planting.
6.7.2 On-site Invasive Species Management
The site has some infestation of Chinese privet (Ligi~stri~m sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multif[ora),
and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) in the floodplains of the riverine system. These areas
will be treated and monitored so that the invasive species do not threaten the newly-planted riparian
vegetation.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 6-18
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

7.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The Baker team has been involved in obtaining recent approvals from the regulatory agencies for a series of
mitigation and restoration plans for wetland and stream projects. The stream restoration success criteria for the
project site will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in recent restoration and mitigation plans
developed for numerous NCEEP full delivery projects, as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued jointly
by the USACE, NCDWQ, WRC, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Apri12003. Specific
success criteria components are presented below.
7.1 Stream Monitoring
Channel stability and vegetation survival will be monitored on the project site. Post-restoration monitoring will
be conducted for five years following the completion of construction to document project success.
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches will be conducted for five years to evaluate the effectiveness
of the restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross sections), pattern
(longitudinal survey), profile (profile survey), and photographic documentation. The methods used, and any
related success criteria, are described below for each parameter.
7.1.1 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
crest gage and photographs. The crest gage will be installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of the
restored channel. The crest gage will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the gage
will be checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits.
- Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented within the five-year monitoring
period. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been
~ documented in separate years.
7.1.2 Cross Sections
' Two permanent cross sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work, with
one located at a riffle cross section and one located at a pool cross section. Each cross section will be
marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A common
benchmark will be used for cross sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year-
to-year data. The annual cross section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present.
Riffle cross sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-
, cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). All monitored cross sections should fall
within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
7.1.3 Longitudinal Proele
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed annually for the duration of the five-year monitoring period.
The as-built survey will be used for year one monitoring. Representative 3,000 LF segments of the
restored Big Cedar Creek and UT1 will be surveyed. The entire project length of UT2 will be
surveyed. Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of
f BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC. PAGE 7-1
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum
pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable; i.e., they are not
aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep, with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles
should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms observed should be consistent with
those observed for channels of the design stream type.
7.1.4 Bed Material Analyses
Pebble counts will be conducted for at least six permanent cross sections on Big Cedar Creek and
UTl, and on at least two permanent cross sections on UT2 (100-counts per cross section). Pebble
counts will be conducted immediately after construction and at a two-year interval thereafter at the
time the longitudinal surveys are performed (years three and five) throughout the five year monitoring
period. Pebble count data will be plotted on semi-log paper and compared with data from previous
years. Data should indicate a relative coarsening of the riffles (or maintenance of a coarse bed in
constructed riffles) and a relative fining in the pools.
7.1.5 Photo Reference Sites
Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued annually for at least five years following
construction. Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent
markers will be established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are
monitored in each monitoring period.
Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section.
Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much
of the bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure photos. Photographs will be taken at representative grade control structures along the
restored stream, limited to cross-vanes and weir structures. Photographers should make every effort
to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Photographs will be used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of
riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively. Lateral photos should
not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time
should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation.
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to determine if the
criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring quadrats will be installed across the restoration site. The number of
quadrats required will be based on the species/area curve method, with a minimum of three quadrats. The size of '
individual quadrats will vary from 100 square meters for tree species to 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in spring, after leaf-out has occurred. Individual quadrant data will be provided
and will include density and coverage quantities. Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will '
be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring
years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and
the current year's living, planted seedlings. '
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 7-2
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density and survival will be evaluated. For each
subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated between July and
November.
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the
recommendations found in the WRP Technical Note (USAGE, 1997) and past project experience.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320, 3-year old, planted trees
per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival
of 260, 5-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period.
7.3 Benthic Monitoring
If required by NCDWQ as part of the permitting requirements of the project, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
will be conducted on the restored site after one year of construction and every two years thereafter (years three
and five) through the five year monitoring period. Appropriate sampling methodologies will be based on current
sampling protocols approved by the NCDWQ.
^ 7.4 Maintenance Issues
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods
than those with a mature, hardwood forest.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction, can limit vegetation growth,
' particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to which a native buffer can be
established.
' Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the as-built and
monitoring reports. The conditions listed above, and any other factors that may have necessitated maintenance,
will be discussed.
^ 7.5 Schedule/Reporting
' Annual monitoring reports containing the information defined herein will be submitted to NCEEP by December
31 of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. Project success criteria must be met by the fifth
monitoring year, or monitoring will continue until success criteria are met.
^
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC. PAGE 7-3
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

8.0 REFERENCES
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects. Washington, DC.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Goldsmith, R., Milton, D.J., and Horton, J.W. 1988. Geologic Map of the Charlotte 1° x 2° Quadrangle, North
Carolina and South Carolina. USGS Map I-1251-E, 3p.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E.
Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology.
AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources
Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Paper
No. 2776: 1234-1279.
Medina, M.A., Reid, J.C., Carpenter, R.H. 2004. Physiography of North Carolina Map. North Carolina
Geologic Survey. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Reference Reach Database.
North Carolina Department of Earth and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
2003. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, NC.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/yadkin/YadkinPD wc~dt mana eg ment~lan0103.htm
NCDENR, DWQ. 2005. Basinwide Information Management System.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/Stanly.pdf
NCDENR, DWQ. 2007. CSU: Surface Water Classification. Raleigh, NC. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 2001. Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened
Species of North Carolina. NCDENR. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, pp 21 and 103.
http://www.ncnhp.org~ges/guide.htm
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 2006. 2006 Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina. NCDENR. Raleigh, North Carolina.
http://www.ncnhp.org[Images/2006RareAnimalList.pdf
NHP. 2006. 2006 Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. NCDENR.
Raleigh, North Carolina. http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/2006RarePlantList.pdf
Reed, Jr., and Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. US
Fish & Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88(24). 244 pp.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 8-1
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
USAGE. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-rs-4.1. Environmental
Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
United States Census Bureau (USCB), 2000. US Census Bureau, Census 2000. http://factfinder.census.gov
USCB, 2005. US Census Bureau, 2005 Population Estimates. http://factfinder.census.~ov
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Official
Soil Series Descriptions. http://ortho.ftw.nres.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi
USDA, NRCS. Web Soil Survey of Stanly County, North Carolina.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
United States Department of the Interior (USDOI), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. The Endangered
Species Act of 1973. Amended through the 108`h Congress. http://www.fws.~?ov/endangered/esaall.pdf
USDOI, USFWS. 2007. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate
Species, Stanly County, North Carolina. http://www.fws.gov/nc°Io2Des/es/cntylist/stanly.html
Vogelmann, J.E., S.M. Howard, L. Yang, C. R. Larson, B. K. Wylie, and J. N. Van Driel, 2001, Completion of
the 1990's National Land Cover Data Set for the conterminous United States, Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 67:650-662.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY, INC.
PAGE 8-2
BIG CEDAR CREEK RESTORATION PLAN

" • wt
~ YADKIN ~
~-` 03-07-04 ~ ;,,
-------- `aa.~ -- 7~ ------ ~
~i ~
~'
~~
r
I
•
1
t~
I
I /
i
,;,Ca`~ ~~, i
Moun@ ~nn~ ~
~~ /
i
~ / t
~ ~ m
'1 / m
• ~~(ADKIN
~ ~~03-07-13
YAD N ~~%
)3-0 -12 I
1
I
I
t
.- , ~
1.
n
t
,,
l`
•
J
acle ~
J
t
1
t~
I
t
~ 52
•
H U 0304010506008
Y
Map Inset 1 Cr
Trt-rrf ~r LEGEND
Y ~~~ ~~~ k O USGS Hydrologic Unit
(~' ~ NCDWQ Sub-basin
l~co~ysten~ ~-- sr~lnt~ Count}', NC ~_! ('OUf1UeS
EEP Project No.: D06054-D ° ~ M~ias
Y
I •
l i
•
'fir, •
~~~
I
I
I
~YADKI
' 03-07-0
•~
1
1,
I~i~
• 1
I
~~
I, a~ e~
~~„e
~,
•~
MOIlRY Ul
Pro -ect Site ;'
~ ~
r ~ ~ •~ YADKIN ~
~-~ ' ~ ~ 03-07_ 10 ~
..i-~-J
iO Ci it ~.--'
ter 2007
Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map
Big Cedar Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Stanly County, NC

1

"L
~~
~ L~,~- ~
-~,
rCh 1
September 2007
LEGEND
Watershed [3oundary ~ Project Reaches Streams
r~
ecosystem
~.,., ~.~,. o ozs os
EEP Project No.: D06054-D Mies
S C,~Z
=~f, ~~ ..
~~ i'
F _
~. i ~ ~r
_~ `~~~ _
a~
,;~~
4:
Figure 1.3: Watershed Ma
Big Cedar Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Stanly County, NC

~:,-,„ BaB BaB
Soils
BaB -Badin channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes
BaD -Badin channery silt loam, 8-15% slopes BaD
BaF -Badin channery silt loam, 15-45% slopes
Co -Congaree fine sandy loam, frequently flooded
EcB -Enon cobbly loam, 2-8% slopes TcB
EcD - Enon cobbly loam, 8-15% slopes B D
EnC -Enon very stony loam, 4-15% slopes BaD
EnE -Enon very stony loam, 15-45% slopes T
GoC -Goldston very channery silt loam, 4-15% slopes
GoF -Goldston very channery silt loam, 15-45% slopes
Mh6 - Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0-4% slopes Bab
GoF
Oa - Oakboro silt loam, frequently flooded gag GoF
'';`'-"~ Tc62 -Tatum channery silty clay loam 2-8% slopes
TcD2 -Tatum channery silty clay loam, 8-15% slopes
BaD
GoC

EcB
BaB
BaD
BaB ~'
-T BaD

~,
i''
y

-_ ~

ii `,

~
c, ,
r,~

_-

~
L ~~
~ ~.
1
° _

.
- _ _
-- - _
. .

~,
~.
NITIONAI 1)000 INSURANCE PR06AAY

ZONE A ~\~"- '
FIRM
ran!'
'
~ '~.. FLOOD INSURANCE AAiE NAP
rrrk ~t` ~i ~f.\RL1' COCSII',

~ ~ \ORTH G\RULIXA
~. `~ ssn n nRrc+R.Areu .eRrns

~i PANEI 25! OP 2)S
. _ .. . .., ~..,,
,
~ _..
~_
ONE A ,. j
.,~
20NE A .

Ma,;Hr :mw ch
~ ~ MAP NUMBER
~~ ~ ~ 3TI6FC0250 0
\ _ 9
°4: ~!'. FfiEC1IYE OATEN
~
/ \
v ~ ~ SEPTEMOEA 21.2000
'
\; ' ZONEA
\\
O
~/ y
\\ f
_ I..I,:,: Iiu~i.en.r }La.ym:n„ \qen.,
\ T
~ ~~ ZONE X '
~
~
"V\
-.
;,
o\an ofl ` ~ ~ '~~-
~~, I ' /
orwood~
37009 ~\-~ ~~'~ ~, ' ~~~ N
~'
~' !!
~'~ ~ 1
ZONE %
.t ~
G 3c ~':~
[..Jh.du'?
r~K
cnuRCM
F ZONE
ZONE X
/~
:,.,

~ ,`
I ~'
~
~
l :.
___ _
,
~ `~~ MATIONAI fL00D IMSUAUICF PRU6AAM

_ ~.
_«-.~ ~~~' FL000 INSURANCE RATE MAP
! ,
=
~,rs~;
- \URIH (:dIIULIN.i
- _
_ .\~D IVt.1 ~RPl~R,1Tt11 \RE.~S
__
~
_ / i~
~
` PIMEL ZIS OF Ib
; Tow
' //
ZONE
/ ..
, om
(EXIraler
q (,
Town of - -
~- °• °

370509 'j`
~I
~_
~ ~.- ;?
~
~;~~
~~'` ~ Mite NUMBER
3716X0225 0
.
,` SLan1V Count}' 1 EFFE~ OATF-
SEPiEM1EA 21
2000
Unincorporated I - _ .
~\YR?!6//!
Areas °

370361 ~% .,.,~ ~ ,,.,
~, : • ~.,. , : ~ ...a
~~
;. --
,
~

~ /% FIRM
LEGEND September ?007 Figure 2.2: FEMA Map
~- ~ Project Reaches Big Cedar Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Stanly County, NC
i~cosystem
~ vt~~.KAM ~ • ~ -
EEP Project No.: D06054-D ~

UT2
~4v C
QO
y ti0
A~
H(
BC~ h 1 ~
O
BCC Reach 2
BCC Reach 3
BCC Reach 4
BCC
X9 RIFFLE
6
UT1
UTl Reach 2
UT3 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 3
LEGEND September 2007 Figure 3.1: Existing Conditions
Project Reaches and
Pn,~ccr Raichcs ~ l3C(; Ruch G $erc~ams Surveyed Cross-Section Locations
l3CC Reach t ~ U'l'I Reach I ~ P~arccl: Big Cedar Creek
'
' Stream Restoration Project
1 Reach 2
1
RCC Roach 2 ®U Stanly County, NC
i
h
U'l'1 R
3
h
~ .
eac
l
CC Reac
3 ~
~11.~J~J~~~~ Lt(;(; Reach d O l'"Cl Reach l
~ Fri, ~ n+. ~~~,~. R~".1C~1 S ~~' ~ ~ ~ 400 800 ~ ~ I ~
EEP Pro~cct No.: D06054-D Feet

~ ~ r ~s a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ w~ sr ~r it ~r ~ ~ ~
Fig. 7.12 - Rosgen's stream classification system (Level ^),
In Stream Corridor Restoretion: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10/9g.
interagency Stream Rcaoralion Working Group (F'ISRWGxt 5 Fnlcral agrncics of the USI.
Entrenchment
Ratio
widthtdepth ratio
slope
Figure 3.2 Rosgen Stream Classification
Big Cedar Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Stanly County, NC
September 2007
EEP Project # D06054-D
River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology, 1

Class I. Sinuous, Premodified
h<hc
h
;y
he =critical bank height
=direction of bank or
bed movement
Class II. Channelized Class III. Degradation
h<hc h<hc
floodplain
h
h ;
i~ ~ ,.
Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h>hc
terrace ~ /////~
S~/
~~
slumped
Class V. Aggradation and Widening
h>hc
Class VI. Quasi Equilibrium
h<hc ~`
terrace terrace
h j
1 slumped
material
aggraded material

Class 1 Class III
primary Class IV
nickpoint
top d~jnk Class V
precursor ~ plunge Class VI
nickpoint ' ~ Pohl directi~., ,.F ~. _.~
secondary ~"" ~
nickpoint '-~--
oversteepened reach aggradation zone aggraded material
Source: Sunon, 1989; US Army Corps of Engineers, 1990.
Fig. 7.14 - Cluumel evolution model..
In Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10/98.
Irrteragency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWGx15 Federal agencies of the US).
Source: Simon, 1989
Figure 3.3 Simon Channel Evolution Model
Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Project
Stanly County
September 2007
EEP Project # D06054-D
~ aggraded material

~ ~ Ir ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Figure 3.4 North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve
Big Cedar Creek, UT1 & UT2 -Existing Conditions Riffle Areas
1000
~ 100
a~
~.
d
~ ..+
W
D'C ~.
=. v~
~~
b
~ 10
1
0.1

• ~
~~ ~

'
~
~~
.~' ~~

• ~
• ~
- ~

~ ~
0.676]
y = 21.433x
RZ = 0.9491
1 10
Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.)
100 1000
BCC 1 • BCC 2 )IC BCC 3 • BCC 4 + BCC 5 ~ BCC 6 - UTl 1
• UTl 2 UT 1 3 • UTl 4 X UT2 1 • Rural Data - - - Upper 95% - - - Lower 95 %

loooo
1000
V
1OO
u
..,
A
10
1
0.1
Figure 3.5 North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve
Big Cedar Creek, UT1 & UT2 - Discharge

O

/ •
/ •
r
/ /

/ '
• / /
i ~ / ~

°0'7223
y = 89.039x
R2 = 0.9069

1 10 100 1000
Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.)
BCC 1 • BCC 2 ~ BCC 3 • BCC 4 + BCC 5 ~C BCC 6 - UTl 1
• UTl 2 ^ UTl 3 • UTl 4 UT2 1 • Rural Data - - - Upper 95% - - - Lower 95 %

-~'A-
WILKE:i Rintla
Nbmanu
~a~~
'~.'-.Tr.iAHF. \ \
~,
i
Mi a
~~~~_~ rr~
_ 1

L INCS LPI
n rayon /~'~__ __

) com ua°
l
igh hals ~---'-'
,~ _-~ Huirters it
~ y ~I
Oa
-
9 T?..1
r'
~:~-y,
Rmla Mouny ~lly
~•~
FMIh
oemmn
Mautrt GileaE
CHMONP
RohGns
MOORE
HAkNET~ I
Ia1MY t
oa~wanim ~ ~~~+
PaAton
ba BnEpe
..J /
0.N Spinga Renne~SaiM Pay
Saint Pf
Map Inset September 2007 Figure 4.1: Reference Reach
LEGEND Locations
`` ~ Big Cedar Creek
Reference Reach Sites t'h) siugraphie Procuxe
Stream Restoration Project
i\Iountain
~;,,~,,it11, Stanly County, NC
i r ~ ~--~ _] Piedmont
,Cf?S"~Stf,1Tl _-
rJ.,~~ci,cr~~w,a _ Coastal Plain
EEP Project No.: D06054-D io s o 10 Miles n ~ •

JLCIlI
EEP Project No.: D06054-D
0 o zs o_s
Miles

~:y ~. '~~~ - w ' ~~g~ ~}
w
~~ ~ ~ _ r ~4a ~ c ~t~sT~
~ ~~r y
~ ~' x
a~ .~f.~y~y~,.. ~- '~ '~ ~~.sa s ~~. ~+.'.. f v. '°t,.fj4 t' , i . ~ '~ ~'y~'R~ W7 ~.
~' a i~;?°a~~~ s ~ili~ 'fir"" ' ~, ~y~ya. ~ ~ ~ ~
~ryr ~ *~.
~~~` ~.~. ~, ~rif7,.. ~~I,~~SrY .~L .P3~fi ~ +"~lit" 5. 5
9~ ~ ~ ~
~,
ti e~'~ e`
' ~ k:.F
~s
M ~ a ~
~ ~ ~
"`r ~ ~. ~ ' ~.,~ ,~
-.
i' ~. «.
M1. -. -
i - ~ - ~,
~; ~- .3• - ~. j
~ rip.
~ ' ~;:
. ;,~.
. ~~ -f ~«3
,t
~ ~.
4ry s
~~ ~ ( t ~ t
9i. V1~
vJ f ~ { ~ ~~ if•
_ r. r fe
f
.~_., .~
r ~~~ ~~
~ ,~ ~~/i~
., x, ~,.
~~" k ~' _ ~. ~'"
. ~+
_.,.h ~., ~ ,v,,, ,
;~~ r~l1~. ~ ~
~ I ~x~4
.'~
^
} 4 j r,.~
4~, fM

~~II~X .
l d
t
~'.
~<`, - ,.
~ ~ ,
C1 n
r ~~ ~ x .;y = .~.
~.
Rah 3. ~ ~ `r
~ ~-
a Nh ~"
F
i~
Mir '.~ ~~ ( .c ~..
W ~, ~p
~~:
-~~ r . ~.
~ ~ ~ `,.,~
~`~~~:`
s~Pu,
9`. ` J
~~
_ I
September 2007 Figure 6.1: Proposed Stream
Restoration Design
~ LeG~Nn Big Cedar Creek
i~«.~~~,.,~~,,,, i~:~~.~~„~;;r,~-a.,, .v;~~,~„~~„r ~:,,~,.~~~:~~~„„ r.a.~~~„~~„~ Stream Restoration Project
~ I~,nh:mccmcnt Scrams Reich Iin~:d:< Stan~y COUnty, NC

h ° Rcsr~~ratL~n o ~~~«~~.
~cos~stem .~
EEP Project No.: D06054-D Fear ~ ~

~ ~ w t~ ~ r
_~ ~_
'Jp~ Q.
~~
`~ n
p ~
Z C
n ~77
~ r~-
~ O
m A ~.
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~0.~~
b ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o ~
o ~ d ~ ° '17
c ~ o^'.~oq
° ., ~ o c- ~
~ o ~ G ,..s
Z ~ ~ p ~ ~
n J d = >v lV
1000
100
.~
~ 10
v
a~
U_
W
a
C
(0
0.1
ti~ =Critical Shear Stress (Ibs / SgFt. )
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

._ .. ~
Appendix A
Regulatory Agency Correspondence

r •
August 29, ZOU6
Renee Gledhill-Earleti~
State Historic Preservation Oft'ice
4617 Mail Sen~ice Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Project,
Stanly County, NC
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any
possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with a
potential stream restoration project on the attached site (a vicinity map, a USGS map of potential ground
disturbance areas, and a soils map are enclosed).
The Big Cedar Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. The project will include one reach of Big Cedar Creek and t~~•o
unnamed tributaries, UT1 and UT2, all of which hove sections of cham~el that are identified as
significantly degraded. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted
during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of the site has
historically been disturbed due to a,ricultural Iwrposes such as straightening, tilling, and cattle grazing.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of historic
properties. Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of the site disturbance assoeitited with this
project.
Sincerely, ~,
~__
:~ndrea Spangler ~'~,~
Buck Engineering
Unit of Michael Baker
aspanglerC~mbakercorp.com
7O4-319-7584

Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker
September 15, 2006
Marella Buncick
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP),
Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Project,
Stanly County, NC
Dear Ms. Buncick:
The purpose of this letter is to provide additional information to your office on the potential effects to
threatened and endangered species from the NCEEP Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Project in
Stanly County for your review and comment.
We have obtained an updated species list for Stanly County from your web site (http://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html). The threatened and endangered species listed for Stanly County are: the
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
Since the project involves primarily degraded streams and wooded areas, federally protected species are
not expected to be impacted by the proposed project. Suitable habitat does not exist for the bald eagle
since the project site is more than 0.5 miles from open water, the preferred nesting distance of the bald
eagle. Suitable habitat does exist for Schweinitz's sunflower in woodland openings and adjacent
agricultural land. A pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted on September 14, 2006 during
blooming season. Schweinitz's sunflower was not observed in or adjacent to the project area during the
field survey; therefore, it is anticipated that project construction will have "no effect" on these two
species.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered species,
migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a stream restoration project on the subject
property. A vicinity map showing the project location and a USGS map showing the approximate areas
of potential ground disturbance are enclosed.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our biological conclusions are correct, that
you do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and that you do not have any information
relevant to this project at the current time.

Your correspondence will be forwarded to NCEEP for consideration. We thank you in advance for your
timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have
concerning this stream restoration project.
Sincerely,
Eric Mularski
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker

Buck Engineering
~ ~ A Unit of Michael Baker
' 1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte. NC 28203
' August 29, 2OOfi 704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
Ms. l2enessa Brown
District Conservationist
26032-C Newt Raad
Albemarle, NC 2bOC) I
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Bib Cedar Creek Stream Ctestoration Project,
Stanly County, NC
Dear Ms. Brawn:
The purposed of this letter is to request your assistance in completing a Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating form for the subject site. Enclosed please find a copy of the farm, vicinity map, USGS topographic
map, and soils map of the project site. For this stream restoration project, ground disturbing activities are
indicated b}' the areas bounded in red on the enclosed Wraps. These areas include 223 acres of Oakbara
silt loam, U.9 acres of Congaree fine sandy loam, and Q.1 acre of Badin channery silt loam with 15-4~`c~
slopes. Based on our evaluation, we estimate that 232 acres of Prime Farmland will be converted to
nonagricultural use by this actiun.
We knave that you have more familiarity with the region and we will be happy to make any changes to the
form that you deem appropriate. Please return the form to us with your determinations and we will fill out
the remainder of the form. Our Fax number is (7114) 334-4402.
if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (704) 319-7SS4 or aspangler~x~mbakercorp.cam.
Thank you tar ~-our assistance in this mattc;r.
Sincerely, ~~
~,
!~ /~
Andrea Spangler ~~'~ ~
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker

Buck Engineering
~ ~ A Unit of Michael Baker
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte. NC 28203
September 7, ?I)OC' 704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
i4lr. Alan Walters
District Conservationist
~3O W'est Inner Street
Salisbury. NC ?8144
Subject: Prime and Important Farmlands
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Qig Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Project,
Stanlw County. NC
Dear 1~1r. Walters:
Thank you for your assistance in completing a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form For the subject
site. Enclosed please find a copy of the completed form.
We know that you have more familiarity with the site, so we wilt be happy to make any changes to the
form that you deem appropriate. Please return the form to us if changes are needed. Our Fat number is
(?04) X34-44y2. Otherwise we will send a copy of the completed form to NCEEP as part of the
categorical exclusion document.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (7(14) 31 y-7554 or aspanglert<i?mbakercorp.com.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely, ~~
~~~~ ~ Lti r' ~.,~--_.
.~~ndrea Spangler
I3uck Engineering
~~ Unit of :Michael Baker

SEP-07-2006 THU 12:55 PM SALISBURY AREA OFFICE FAX N0, 7046378077
P. 02
REi ~I:(VED SEP ~' ~ Zoos
U.S. Depgrtment of Agriculture
FARMLANt] CONVERSION IMPACT Ra~~~rlN a~
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) • Date Ot Land Evaluation Request ,:.. •;9106 _
Name Of Project Big Cedar Creek Federal ABancy Involved FHWA/eil: ;~ _ ., _...r . _•.
f'ropoeed land Use Stream Restoration County And State Stanly Countp,~'dC
PART tt (To be completed by NRCSJ ' gi#e'Reque6t Receive4 BY MRCS ~ • ~ •~ ~ %~ • ^~
,~ ~~=.~
Goes the bite contain prirrto, unique, statewide ar local ttitpOftant farrntidrtd? Yes No Aan
(lf no; the- FPPA does not apply - da not complete addtilonai parts of this harm).
~
p
-
^
-vlajarCroP(s) G
ion
~
~
el.~r~in
~
° Atr~
,
~~
~
. J
~,
~ Acres:
!°
_ ~_~` " '
Act
,`
tJama # Land: Evalua ~ ystem ~ ~ Name Of lncat SNe~~~ System Dal,:.
PART III (To be co plated by Federa- Agency)
Sit
A
SI
.
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly e
23.3 I~

e. Total Acres To 6e Converted Indirectly
~
p_p __
C. Total Acres In Site 23.3 0.0
PART IV (Tv be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information .
~
A. Total Acres Prime And Un ue Farmland. • '
B. Total Acres Statewide And_l,ocal important Farmland _
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Qr Local Govt. Unit Ta Be Converted
D. P~eroantage Qf Farmland In Csovl. Jurisdiction Wkh Same (]r Higher Ralatlwe Value ~ ~ .
PART V (To be comp/elect by NRCS) !_and Evaluation. Criterion
0 t
g
Relative Value Of Farmland To 8e Converted. (Scale of 0 to 104 Points) . ,D 7
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maxinxrn
Site Assessment Criteria (These akerid are exptairted in 7 CFR 658.5(b} Pants
1. Area In Nanurban Use ~ _
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use l ~-,
~/ ,
~~
_
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
~ r _~,.
4. Protection Provided BY State And Local Government
_ S. Distance From urban Builtup Area .
L~
t3. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average _
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland ~ ~>

~;
-~
-~
9. Availability Or Farm SuppoR Services
_ 10. on-Farm Investments
1 ~ • Effects Of Conversion Dn Farm Support Services
12. Compatit~lity With F~dsting Agricultural Use ~
- z
~,
{,
~,
TOTA1, SITE ASSESSMENT PQtNTS 1 ga > ~ j 0
PART Vtl (f'o be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) t00 ~(~ .~ I p
Total Site Asse~rt'rent (from Pdrt VI above of a local
sere assessmern)
160 ,
~ _ L i
0
TpTAL POINTS (1`otal of above 2 lines) 260 ~ o
Site Selected:
Reason For Selectlon~
4 ~ 4verag8 Farm :iL!,D ..^_.. --
/S"r.y ;~'~c~+.
~ d. ~~F((//z 'n d~t/(n/~d LA///sJ D//%a/off//n//eJ,d 'u~ t'~ ~ PAC] ~
..and Ev I~ r tlon rJ:f i `S
i .t ~ Si1e C i ;N D
_ _ j
.~ .. _ _
C 0
~ ---- -.
____i__ " _--
~0 IO
I u j p --- --
... to ... io ..
Date Of Sal ~ Was A Lor.: i 5(28 A: sr ssment Used? ~ -
ec#ton ~ ~ .~`~ ~. Yes (] No Q _ .
(Sea Instrr/cdons DI- reverse side) Form AD•1ptN6 (r0~8:f)
Ttw. Torm was piCVO~lGtlly prOOoGAG bYNitloR81 ProduCUOn Swiepr, Sr811

~ ,
September 15, 2006
Shannon Deaton,
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Project
Stanly County, NC
Dear Ms. Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to the fish and wildlife associated with the Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Project, located in
Stanly County (a USGS site map with approximate areas of potential ground disturbance is enclosed).
The Big Cedar Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of the channel have been identified as significantly
degraded. This stream restoration site was selected based on its probability to restore high quality stream
habitat where it has ceased to exist. The conceptual plan for this project calls for the restoration of these
channels to a stable condition. This process will involve the restoration of natural channel dimension,
pattern and profile and the reestablishment of forested riparian buffers within the project area.
A threatened and endangered species survey was conducted on September 14, 2006 for the two federally
protected species listed for Stanly County: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Suitable habitat does not exist for the bald eagle since the project
site is more than 0.5 miles from open water, the preferred nesting distance of the bald eagle. Suitable
habitat does exist for Schweinitz's sunflower but no species were observed in or adjacent to the project
area during the field survey; therefore, it is anticipated that these species will not be impacted by the
proposed project.
We have enclosed a copy of the vicinity map and USGS topographic map that includes the proposed
stream restoration project site. We ask that you review this information to determine the presence of any
constraints concerning protected species. Your correspondence will be forwarded to the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program for consideration.
~/fH/~/11~L/S.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning this stream restoration project (704-319-7889).
Sincerely,
Eric Mularski
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker

~~
~~
y
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
2 October 2006
Mr. Eric Mularski
Buck Engineering - A Unit of Michael Baker
1447 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
Subject: Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Project, Stanly County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Mularski:
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 seq.).
The North Cazolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program has identified a stream restoration site
along Big Cedar Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. Several sections of channel have been
identified as significantly degraded. The stream will be restored to natural channel dimension, pattern
and profile and forested riparian buffers will be re-established.
There are records for the state threatened Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) downstream in
Rocky River. We recommend you consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential
impacts to Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus scjiweinit~ii).
Stream and wetland restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat.
Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation from construction/restoration
activities, we do not anticipate the project to result insignificant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you require further assistance, please
contact our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
~~~~~~
OCT ~ 2006
^1 ~,.
~~ ~
ENGir~iSY-i.~.~r, ._ .,
- ~:~
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Appendix B
EDR Transaction Screen Map Report

R® Environmental
Data Resources Inc
The EDR Radius Map
with GeoCheck®
Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration
Stanley County
Norwood, NC 28128
Inquiry Number: 01735681.1r
August 15, 2006
The Standard in
Environmental Risk
Management Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06461
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com
FORM-NULL-ERN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary------------------------------------------------------- ES1
Overview Map----------------------------------------------------------- 2
Detail Map-------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Map Findings Summary---------------------------------------------------- 4
Map Findings------------------------------------------------------------ 6
Orphan Summary--------------------------------------------------------. 7
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum__________________________________________ A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary___________________________________________ A-2
Physical Setting Source Map_______________________________________________. A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings________________________________________ A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched____________________________________ A-11
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer -Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment pertormed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2006 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the roe of their res ective owners.
TC01735681.1 r Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
STANLEY COUNTY
NORWOOD, NC 28128
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.198900 - 35° 11' 56.0"
80.130300 - 80° 7' 49.1"
Zone 17
579171.9
3895249.0
334 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map:
Most Recent Revision
East Map:
Most Recent Revision
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
35080-62 AQUADALE, NC
2002
35080-61 MOUNT GILEAD WEST, NC
2002 '
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL_____________. Proposed National Priority List Sites
Delisted NPL_______________ National Priority List Deletions
NPL RECOVERY____________. Federal Superfund Liens
CERCLIS____________________ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CERC-NFRAP_______________ CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
TC01735681.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CORRACTS_________________ Corrective Action Report
RCRA-TSDF_________________ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-LQG__________________ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-SQG__________________ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
ERNS________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
HMIRS_______________________ Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
US ENG CONTROLS________ Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL________. Sites with Institutional Controls
DOD_________________________ Department of Defense Sites
FUDS________________________ Fnrmerly Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS_________. AListing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT___________________ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD_________________________ Records Of Decision
UMTRA______________________ Oranium Mill Tailings Sites
ODI__________________________ open Dump Inventory
TRIS_________________________ Tnxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA________________________ Tnxic Substances Control Act
FTTS________________________ FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &
Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
SSTS________________________ Section 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS_________________________. lntegrated Compliance Information System
PADS_______________________. PCB Activity Database System
MLTS________________________ Matevial Licensing Tracking System
MINES_______________________ Mlnes Master Index File
FINDS_______________________ Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
RAATS______________________ RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS_______________________
NC HSDS____________________ Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
Hazavdous Substance Disposal Site
IMD__________________________ lncident Management Database
SWF/LF_____________________. List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI__________________________ Old Landfill Inventory
LUST________________________ Regional UST Database
LUST TRUST________________ State Trust Fund Database
UST_________________________. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST_________________________. RST Database
INST CONTROL____________ No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
VCP_________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS_____________ Drycleaning Sites
BROWNFIELDS_____________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
' NPDES______________________ NPDES Facility Location Listing
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV____________. lndian Reservations
INDIAN LUST________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
INDIAN UST_________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
' EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants___ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Historical Auto StationsEDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations
' EDR Historical Cleaners____. EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners

TC01735681.ir EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC01735681.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
Site Name
ANSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
CAROLINA SOLITE CORP/AQUADALE
MCCOY OIL COMPANY
CORNER STORE #3 (WILDERS C-STO
CORNER STORE #3 (WILDERS C-STORE)
AEROQUIP-NORWOOD PLANT
REMBERT HARGROVE BLALOCK
KAISER AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL
STANLY FIXTURES CO.. INC.
FAST SHOP OF BURNSVILLE
POOLES GROCERY
JC'S KWIK STOP
R.P. ALLEN STORE
RAYFIELD MEAT CENTER
RED STAR SERVICE STATION
JACKSON'S GROCERY
MARTIN BROTHERS CO.
SAMUEL DURHAM SESSIONS
COMMUNITY GROCERY
ALLTEL CAROLINA-(SERVICE CENT
JIMMYS SUPERETTE
HORNWOOD INC. (KENVILLE PLANT)
NORWOOD DUMP
WADESBORO LANDFILL
NORWOOD WWTP
Database(s)
FTTS
CERC-NFRAP
LUST, LUST TRUST, IMD
LUST, IMD
LUST TRUST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
AST
OLI
OLI
NPDES
TC01735681.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

OVERVIEW MAP - 01735681.1 r
~ Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
L Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/2 1 t iwires
,' Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance '
~- ' Disposal Sites
N County Boundary
Oil & Gas pipelines '
National Wetland Inventory
~~ State Wetlands
SITE NAME: Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Stanley County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Norwood NC 28128 INQUIRY#: 01735681.ir
LAT/LONG: 35.1989 / 80.1303 DATE: August 15, 2006

DET011 MOP _ (117'~~RR1 1 r
~- Target Property
`~ Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
' 1 Manufactured Gas Plants
r Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/16 1/8 1/4 Mlks
~ Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
1
~y'~~ Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
SITE NAME: Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Stanley County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Norwood NC 28128 INQUIRY #: 01735681.1 r
LAT/LONG: 35.1989 / 80.1303 DATE: August 15, 2006

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed NPL 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
Delisted NPL 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
NPL RECOVERY 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
CERCLIS 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
CERC-NFRAP 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
CORRACTS 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
RCRA TSD 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen. 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ERNS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
HMIRS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
US ENG CONTROLS 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
US INST CONTROL 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOD 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
FUDS 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
US BROWNFIELDS 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONSENT 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROD 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
UMTRA 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
ODI 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
TRIS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
TSCA 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FTTS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
SSTS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ICIS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
PADS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
MLTS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
MINES 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FINDS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RAATS 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
State Haz. Waste 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC HSDS 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
IMD 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
State Landfill 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
OLI 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
LUST 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
LUST TRUST 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
UST 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
AST 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
INST CONTROL 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
VCP 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
DRYCLEANERS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
BROWNFIELDS 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
NPDES 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
TC01735681.1 r Page 4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
INDIAN LUST 1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0
INDIAN UST 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.750 0 0 0 0 0 0
EDR Historical Auto Stations 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
EDR Historical Cleaners 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NOTES:
TP =Target Property
NR =Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC01735681.1 r Page 5

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction

Distance
Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
NO SITES FOUND
TC01735681.1 r Page 6

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ A ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
ORPHAN SUMMARY
Ciry
NORWOOD
NORWOOD
NORWOOD
NORWOOD
NORWOOD
NORWOOD
NORWOOD
NORWOOD
NORWOOD
NORWOOD
POLKTON
TROY
WADAESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
WADESBORO
EDR ID Site Name Site Address
0001206927 AEROQUIP-NORWOOD PLANT HWY #52 SOUTH
0003143678 REMBERT HARGROVE BLALOCK ROUTE 1
S101523265 MCCOY Oll COMPANY HWY 138
1003868329 CAROLINA SOLITE CORP/AQUADALE RTE 2
0001191609 KAISER AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL ROUTE 2, BOX 227
S105486000 NORWOOD DUMP HWY 52, 2 MI S OF TOWN
S105764473 CORNER STORE #3 (WILDERS C-STO HIGHWAY 52/718 N. MAIN ST
S107525969 CORNER STORE #3 (WILDERS C-STORE) HWY 52/718 N MAIN ST
0001191554 STANLY FIXTURES CO.. INC. P.O. BOX 616 -HIGHWAY 138
S107780455 NORWOOD WWTP 6896 US HWY 52
0003147373 FAST SHOP OF BURNSVILLE HWY 742
0001205477 POOLES GROCERY HWY 109
0003369590 JC'S KWIK STOP 1100 US OLD 74 HWY WEST
0001200731 R.P. ALLEN STORE HIGHWAY 109 NORTH
0003562972 RAYFIELD MEAT CENTER 4450 HWY 109 S
0001201347 RED STAR SERVICE STATION ROUTE 2, BOX 21-A
0003145808 JACKSON'S GROCERY HIGHWAY 218 NORTH
S105485443 WADESBORO LANDFILL HWY 52 1/2 MI N OF TOWN
0001200892 MARTIN BROTHERS CO. HIGHWAY 52 SOUTH
0001201763 SAMUEL DURHAM SESSIONS HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
0001205470 COMMUNITY GROCERY HWY 52N
0001200783 ALLTEL CAROLINA-(SERVICE CENT HIGHWAY 742
0003138285 JIMMYS SUPERETTE HWY 742 SOUTH & SR 1003
A100186558 HORNWOOD INC. (KENVILLE PLANT) PO BOX 799 US HWY. 52 S.
1008174788 ANSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SOUTH GREEN STREET, HIGHWAY 10
Zip Database(s)
28128 UST
28128 UST
28128 LUST, LUST TRUST, IMD
28128 CERC-NFRAP
28128 UST
OLI
LUST, IMD
LUST TRUST
28128 UST
28128 NPDES
28170 UST
28170 UST
28170 UST
28170 UST
28170 UST
28170 UST
28170 UST
28170 OLI
28170 UST
28170 UST
28170 UST
28170 UST
28170 UST
28170 AST
28170 FTTS
TC01735681.1 r Page 7

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required.
Number of Days to Update: Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days
from the date the government agency made the information available to the public.
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL: National Priority List
National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) and regional EPA offices.
Date of Government Version: 04/19/2006 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/05/2006 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2006 Last EDR Contact: 08/02/2006
Number of Days to Update: 17 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/30/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
NPL Site Boundaries
Sources:
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 1 EPA Region 6
Telephone [phone] Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 3 EPA Region 7
Telephone [phone] Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 4 EPA Region 8
Telephone [phone] Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 5
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 10
Telephone [phone]
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
Date of Government Version: 04/19/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/05/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2006
Number of Days to Update: 17
EPA Region 9
Telephone : [phone]
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 08/02/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/30/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
Date of Government Version: 04/19/2006 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/05/2006 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2006 Last EDR Contact: 08/02/2006
Number of Days to Update: 17 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/30/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

TC01735681.1 r Page GR-1 ,

1

1
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
NPL RECOVERY: Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980, the USEPA has the authority
to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner
received notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
Date of Government Version: 10/15/1991
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/1994
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/1994
Number of Days to Update: 56
CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities,
private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities
List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/13/2006
Number of Days to Update: 23
CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status
indicates that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined
no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates
this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time.
This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that,
based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/13/2006
Number of Days to Update: 23
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/23/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/22/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/18/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/23/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/18/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
' CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.

Date of Government Version: 03/15/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/13/2006
Number of Days to Update: 27
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/03/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information

1

' TC01735681.1r Page GR-2

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRAInfo replaces
the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS).
The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of
hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small
quantity generators (CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous
waste per month. Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per
month. Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg
of acutely hazardous waste per month. Transporters are individuals or entities that move hazardous waste from
the generator off-site to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store,
or dispose of the waste.
Date of Government Version: 03/09/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/27/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 33
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/28/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/12/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/21/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/25/2006
Number of Days to Update: 40 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/14/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 46
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/19/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
US ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites List
A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building
foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental
media or effect human health.
Date of Government Version: 03/21/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/2712006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2006
Number of Days to Update: 56
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/03/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls
A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures,
such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation
care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally
required as part of the institutional controls.
Date of Government Version: 03/21/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/27/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2006
Number of Days to Update: 56
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/03/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC01735681.1r Page GR-3

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
DOD: Department of Defense Sites
This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that
have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2004
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/08/2005
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/04/2005
Number of Days to Update: 177
FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites
The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers
is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions.
Date of Government Version: 12/05/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/19/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/21/2006
Number of Days to Update: 33
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields
properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments-EPA's Targeted Brownfields
Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities--especially those without EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots--minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with
brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments
at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts
under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement
Recipients-States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become Brownfields Cleanup Revolving
Loan Fund (BCRLF) cooperative agreement recipients when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the
U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF
cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified
brownfields-related cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: 04/26/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/27/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 33
CONSENT: Supertund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released
periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters.
Date of Government Version: 12/14/2004 Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2005 Telephone: Varies
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/25/2005 Last EDR Contact: 07/24/2006
Number of Days to Update: 69 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/06/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/17/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/0212006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/12/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
' ROD: Records Of Decision
Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Supertund) site containing technical
and health information to aid in the cleanup.

Date of Government Version: 04/13/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 32
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/06/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
1

' TC01735681.1r Page GR-4

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills
shut down, large piles of the sand-like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from
the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings
were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized.
Date of Government Version: 11/04/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/28/2005
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 63
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/21/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/18/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
ODI: Open Dump Inventory
An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258
Subtitle D Criteria.
Date of Government Version: 06/30/1985
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/09/2004
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/17/2004
Number of Days to Update: 39
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2004
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
PRP: Potentially Responsible Parties
A listing of verified Potentially Responsible Parties
Date of Government Version: 03/09/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/13/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2006
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/06/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2003
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/13/2005
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/17/2005
Number of Days to Update: 35
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/22/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/18/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2002
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/14/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 46
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/17/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2006
Data Release Frequency: Every 4 Years
FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the
Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 03/29/2006 Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/26/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05130/2006 Last EDR Contact: 06/19/2006
Number of Days to Update: 34 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/18/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC01735681.1r Page GR-5'

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
r FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)

Date of Government Version: 03/31/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/26/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/19/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/18/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems
Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all
registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March
1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices
being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2004
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/11/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2006
Number of Days to Update: 11
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/17/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System
The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports the information needs of the national enforcement
and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.

Date of Government Version: 02/13/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2006
Number of Days to Update: 20
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/17/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

PADS: PCB Activity Database System
PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial stovers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.
Date of Government Version: 12/27/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/08/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2006
Number of Days to Update: 19
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/09/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/06/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
i
Date of Government Version: 04/12/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/26/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/03/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

i
MINES: Mines Master Index File
Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The data also includes
violation information.
Date of Government Version: 02/09/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/29/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 62
Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/28/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/25/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
TC01735681.1r Page GR-6

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities
Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System).
Date of Government Version: 04/27/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/02/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 28
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/03/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/03/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration
actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.
Date of Government Version: 04/17/1995
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/03/1995
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/07/1995
Number of Days to Update: 35
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/05/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2006
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LOG)
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2003
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/17/2005
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/04/2005
Number of Days to Update: 48
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/21/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2006
Data Release Frequency: Biennially
SHWS: Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Supertund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 04/11/2006 Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/12/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/10/2006
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
HSDS: Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Locations of uncontrolled and unregulated hazardous waste sites. The file includes sites on the National Priority
List as well as those on the state priority list.
Date of Government Version: 06/21/1995 Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/10/1997 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/02/1997 Last EDR Contact: 05/31/2006
Number of Days to Update: 53 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/28/2006
Data Release Frequency: Biennially
TC01735681.1 r Page GR-7 ,

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
IMD: Incident Management Database
Groundwater andlor soil contamination incidents
Date of Government Version: 04/01/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/27/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006 Last EDR Contact: 08/01/2006
Number of Days to Update: 27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SWFILF: List of Solid Waste Facilities
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.
Date of Government Version: 04/27/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/27/2006 Telephone: [phone]
' Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006 Last EDR Contact: 08/07/2006
Number of Days to Update: 27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
' OLI: Old Landfill Inventory
Old landfill inventory location information. (Does not include no further action sites and other agency lead
sites).
Date of Government Version: 04/03/2006 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/09/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2006
Number of Days to Update: 15 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LUST: Regional UST Database
' This database contains information obtained
of current and historic activity for individual si from the Regional Offices. It provides a more detailed explanation
tes, as well as what was previously found in the Incident Management
Database. Sites in this database with Incident Numbers are considered LUSTS.
Date of Government Version: 06/02/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/07/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/06/2006 Last EDR Contact: 06/07/2006
Number of Days to Update: 29 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
LUST TRUST: State Trust Fund Database
This database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for reimbursements for expenses
incurred while remediating Leaking USTs.
Date of Government Version: 05/04/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/09/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006 Last EDR Contact: 08/09/2006
Number of Days to Update: 15 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/06/2006
' Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
UST: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Data base
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. US T's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
' Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
Date of Govemment Version: 05/12/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
' Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/07/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/30/2006 Last EDR Contact: 06/07/2006
Number of Days to Update: 23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/04/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

' TC01735681.1r Page GR-8

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
AST: AST Database
Facilities with aboveground storage tanks that have a capacity greater than 21,000 gallons.
Date of Government Version: 04/12/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/13/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/17/2006
Number of Days to Update: 41 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INST CONTROL: No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
Date of Government Version: 04/11/2006 Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/12/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/10/2006
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Date of Government Version: 04111/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/12/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/10/2006
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaning Sites
Potential and known drycleaning sites, active
knowledge of and entered into this database.
Date of Government Version: 04/04/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/14/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006
Number of Days to Update: 40
and abandoned, that the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program has
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/19/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Projects Inventory
A brownfield site is an abandoned, idled, or underused property where the threat of environmental contamination
has hindered its redevelopment. All of the sites in the inventory are working toward a brownfield agreement for
cleanup and liabitliy control.
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2005 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/14/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2006 Last EDR Contact: 08/04/2006
Number of Days to Update: 22 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/30/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NPDES: NPDES Facility Location Listing
General information regarding NPDES(Ns
Date of Government Version: 05/22/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/02/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/06/2006
Number of Days to Update: 34
TRIBAL RECORDS
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits.
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/19/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/28/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations
This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater
than 640 acres.
TC01735681.1r Page GR-9'

1

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2004
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/08/2005
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/04/2005
Number of Days to Update: 177
INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Date of Government Version: 01/04/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/21/2005
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/28/2005
Number of Days to Update: 38
INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Date of Government Version: 06/08/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/09/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/28/2006
Number of Days to Update: 49
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/06/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Source: EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: EPA Region 10
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
' INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTS on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Nevada

Date of Government Version: 06/01/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/23/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/02/2006
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
1 INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTS on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

Date of Government Version: 06/06/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/09/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/28/2006
Number of Days to Update: 49
Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land.
t
Date of Government Version: 06/08/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/09/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/28/2006
Number of Days to Update: 19
Source: EPA Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies

INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Date of Government Version: 06/06/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/09/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/28/2006
Number of Days to Update: 49
Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
' TC01735681.1r Page GR-10

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Date of Government Version: 12/02/2004
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/29/2004
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/04/2005
Number of Days to Update: 37
Source: EPA Region 5
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Date of Government Version: 06/08/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/09/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/28/2006
Number of Days to Update: 49
Source: EPA Region 10
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
A listing of underground storage tank locations on Indian Land.
Date of Government Version: 06/08/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/09/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/30/2006
Number of Days to Update: 21
Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Date of Government Version: 06/01/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/23/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/02/2006
Number of Days to Update: 40
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Source: EPA Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Manufactured Gas Plants: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants)
compiled by EDR's researchers. Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800's to 1950's
to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel. These plants used whale oil, rosin, coal, or a mixture
of coal, oil, and water that also produced a significant amount of waste. Many of the byproducts of the gas production,
such as coal tar (oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals), sludges, oils and other compounds
are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. The byproduct from this process was frequently
disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly, serving as a continuous source of soil
and groundwater contamination.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: EDR, Inc.
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
EDR Historical Auto Stations: EDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited
to those categories of sources that might, in EDR's opinion, include gas station/filling station/service station
establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station,
filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, etc.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A
Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC01735681.1 r Page GR-11'

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EDR Historical Cleaners: EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited to those categories of sources
that might, in EDR's opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were
not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A
OTHER DATABASE(S)
Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through
transporters to a tsd facility.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2004
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/17/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2006
Number of Days to Update: 49
NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 06/01/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/06/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/01/2006
Number of Days to Update: 26
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/14/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 07/05/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data
Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD
facility.
Date of Government Version: 05/02/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/31/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/27/2006
Number of Days to Update: 27
PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/04/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/06/2006
Number of Days to Update: 33
Source: Department of Environmental Conservation
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/31/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/28/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 06/12/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
TC01735681.1 r Page GR-12

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
RI MANIFEST: Manifest information
Hazardous waste manifest information
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2005 Source: Department of Environmental Management
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/09/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006 Last EDR Contact: 06/19/2006
Number of Days to Update: 15 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09118/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/02/2006
Number of Days to Update: 46
Source: Department of Natural Resources
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 07/25/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Oil/Gas Pipelines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs
from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily
gas pipelines.
Electric Power Transmission Line Data
Source: PennWell Corporation
Telephone: [phone]
This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided
on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its
fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell.
Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity
to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all
sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities -schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers,
and nursing homes -where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.
AHA Hospitals:
Source: American Hospital Association, Inc.
Telephone: [phone]
The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals.
Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Telephone: [phone]
A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services,
a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Nursing Homes
Source: National Institutes of Health
Telephone: [phone]
Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States.
Public Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: [phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary
and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical
database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are
comparable across all states.
Private Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: [phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States.
Daycare Centers: Child Care Facility List
Source: Department of Health & Human Services
Telephone: [phone]
TC01735681.1 r Page GR-13

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002 and 2005 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetlands Inventory
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2006 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC01735681.1r Page GR-14

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
BIG CEDAR CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
STANLEY COUNTY
NORWOOD, NC 28128
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
Latitude (North): 35.19890 - 35° 11' 56.0"
Longitude (West): 80.1303 - 80° 7' 49.1"
Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 17
UTM X (Meters): 579171.9
UTM Y (Meters): 3895249.0
Elevation: 334 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Target Property Map: 35080-62 AQUADALE, NC
Most Recent Revision: 2002
East Map: 35080-61 MOUNT GILEAD WEST, NC
Most Recent Revision: 2002
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components:
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the
geologic strata.
i
TC01735681.1 r Page A-1

GEOCHECK®-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
' Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).
i
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
General Topographic Gradient: General SE
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES

c
0
a
ca
N
W
W w 1A ~ ~"' w w
W O {y,.~
N N
~- O N p W V A O N C N
. yl lo. -off. --- ~...~-.~. ~-~-a.I,r-.
~° ~ w
1\YI LI I
TP
~_
C A
O u yp w
'O J ID N ~ V
W
V W W W
~ W N • b N A ~ O
W . - . - . - . - - . - O . ~f. - M - ~ - p .
w ~N ~ u
I
West East
TP
0 1/2 1 Miles
Target Property Elevation: 334 ft.
' Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated
on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified.
TC01735681.1 r Page A-2

GEOCHECK®-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
and bodies of water).
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
Target Propertv County
STANLY, NC
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property
Additional Panels in search area:
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
NWI Quad at Target Propertv
AQUADALE
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
FEMA Flood
Electronic Data
Not Available
Not Reported
Not Reported
NWI Electronic
Data Coverage
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
AQUIFLOW®
Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION
MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW
Not Reported
TC01735681.1 r Page A-3

GEOCHECK®-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
move more quickly through sandy-gravelly types of soils than silty-clayey types of soils.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT
GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
Era: Paleozoic Category: Eugeosynclinal Deposits
System: Cambrian
Series: Cambrian
Code: Ce (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
Geologic Age and Rock stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil
Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information
for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns
in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps.
The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data.
Soil Component Name: TATUM
Soil Surface Texture: silt loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B -Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth to
water table is more than 6 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential -Uncoated Steel: HIGH
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 40 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 60 inches
TC01735681.1 r Page A-4

GEOCHECK° -PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeabilit Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 6 inches silt loam Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 5.50
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty 50%), silt.
Soils.
2 6 inches 42 inches silty clay loam Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 5.50
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit 50% or
200), Clayey more), Elastic
Soils. silt.
3 42 inches 46 inches weathered Not reported Not reported Max: 0.06 Max: 0.00
bedrock Min: 0.00 Min: 0.00
OTHER SOIL TYPES IN AREA
Based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data, the following additional subordinant soil types may
appear within the general area of target property.
Soil Surface Textures: clay loam
loam
fine sandy loam
channery -silt loam
Surficial Soil Types: clay loam
loam
fine sandy loam
channery -silt loam
Shallow Soil Types: clay loam
very channery -silt loam
silt loam
sandy clay loam
Deeper Soil Types: silty clay loam
sandy loam
silt loam
unweathered bedrock
LOCAL /REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental
professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an
opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.
TC01735681.1 r Page A-5

GEOCHECK®-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)
Federal USGS 1.000
Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile
State Database 1.000
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
1 USGS2260378 1/2 - 1 Mile WNW
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No PWS System Found
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Welis Found
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE ELEMENT OCCURRENCES
ID Class
NC50003393 Animal
TC01735681.1 r Page A-6

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 01735681.1 r
Sao 1
~~
/ :~
a~x~
~ ~ \
~ A~
m
N
D i L
N
0
s
///J ~ G
/ ~ 1
~. }t~~ O
~~-~ ~ ~
~„~
~~ of
~ - ~
a ~ ~,
D ~' Z~
~~~ ~~~ ~
i 3-0 _
__ ~~~
~ ~~ 1 a
~ ~ :.~ i ~
~ ~ ~_
4/,~
\ S~
1
1 ~
\ OG
r--/ ~y
j ~o
J ~ ~ /^\ N
V ~ ~? ` I
/V County Boundary
/~/ Major Roads
/v Contour Lines
O Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater
® Water Wells
© Public Water Supply Wells
® Cluster of Multiple Icons
U 7/4 1/2 t Milas

Groundwater Flow Direction ~<j Wildlife Areas
c i Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location ~ Natural Areas
c v Groundwater Flow Varies at Location ~ Rare & Endangered Species

SITE NAME: Big Cedar Creek Stream Restoration CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Stanley County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Norwood NC 28128 INQUIRY #: 01735681.1r
LAT/LONG: 35.1989 / 80.1303 DATE: August 15, 2006

GEOCHECK~-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Database EDR ID Number
1
WNW FED USGS USGS2260378
1l2 - 1 Mile
Higher
Agency cd: USGS Site no: 351210080084301
Site name: ST-213
Latitude: 351210
Longitude: 0800843 Dec lat: 35.20292395
Dec Ion: -80.14505943 Coor meth: M
Coor accr: S Latlong datum: NAD27
Dec latlong datum: NAD83 District: 37
State: 37 County: 167
Country: US Land net: Not Reported
Location map: Not Reported Map scale: Not Reported
Altitude: Not Reported Altitude method: Not Reported
Altitude accuracy: Not Reported Altitude datum: Not Reported
Hydrologic: Not Reported
Topographic: Hilltop
Site type: Ground-water other than Spring Date construction: Not Reported
Date inventoried: Not Reported Mean greenwich time offset: EST
Local standard time flag: Y
Type of ground water site: Single well, other than collector or Ranney type
Aquifer Type: Not Reported
Aquifer: ARGILLITE
Well depth: 101.0 Hole depth: Not Reported
Source of depth data: reporting agency (generally USGgJroject number: 453709900
Real time data flag: 0 Daily flow data begin date: 0000-00-00
Daily flow data end date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data count: 0
Peak flow data begin date: 0000-00-00 Peak flow data end date: 0000-00-00
Peak flow data count: 0 Water quality data begin date: 0000-00-00
Water quality data end date:0000-00-00 Water quality data count: 0
Ground water data begin date: 1965-00-00 Ground water data end date: 1965-00-00
Ground water data count: 1
Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 1
Feet below Feet to
Date Surface Sealevel
~ ~, ,~
t
TC01735681.1 r Page A-8

GEOCHECK©-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance Datahase DR ID N ~mh .r
NC_NHEO NC50003393
GISID: 141811
Classification by Type: Animal
Occurrence Status: Extant
TC01735681.1 r Page A-9

GEOCHECK®-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
AREA RADON INFORMATION
State Database: NC Radon
Radon Test Results
County Result Type
STANLY Statistical
STANLY Non-Statistical
Total Sites Ava oCi/L
5 0.86
37 2.56
Federal EPA Radon Zone for STANLY County: 3
Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.
Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L.
Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.
Range pCi/L
0.30-2.00
0.00-12.30
Federal Area Radon Information for STANLY COUNTY, NC
Number of sites tested: 3
Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L
Living Area - 1st Floor 0.400 pCi/L
Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported
Basement 1.167 pCi/L
100%
Not Reported
100%
4-20 pCi/L % >20 pCi/L
0% 0%
Not Reported Not Reported
0% 0%
TC01735681.1r Page A-10

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
EDR acquired the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds
to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000-scale topographic quadrangle maps. The DEM provides elevation data
with consistent elevation units and projection.
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002 and 2005 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetlands Inventory
Source: Department of Environment ~ Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
AQUIFLOWR Information System
Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has
extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table
information.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit
Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital
representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national
Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil
survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation
of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO)
soil survey maps.
SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)
Telephone: [phone]
SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Services, mapping
scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to
construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the
original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county
natural resource planning and management.
TC01735681.1 r Page A-11

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
LOCAL /REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
FEDERAL WATER WELLS

PWS: Public Water Systems
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at
least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources.
PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after
August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS)
This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface
water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater.
STATE RECORDS
North Carolina Public Water Supply Wells
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: [phone]
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
NC Natural Areas: Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A polygon converage identifying sites (terrestrial or aquatic that have particular biodiversity significance.
A site's significance may be due to the presenceof rare species, rare or hight quality natural communities, or
other important ecological features.
NC Game Lands: Wildlife Resources Commission Game Lands
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
All publicly owned game lands managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and as listed in Hunting
and Fishing Maps.
NC Natural Heritage Sites: Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Sites
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A point coverage identifying locations of rare and endangered species, occurrences of exemplary or unique natural
ecosystems (terrestrial or aquatic), and special animal habitats (e.g., colonial waterbird nesting sites).
RADON
State Database: NC Radon
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Radon Statistical and Non Statiscal Data
Area Radon Information
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey.
' The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at
private sources such as universities and research institutions.

TC01735681.1 r Page A-12

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
EPA Radon Zones
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor
radon levels.
OTHER
Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656
Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater
Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2006 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC01735681.1 r Page A-13

, , s ~ 4
o 7
Appendix C
Existing Conditions Data

~ .~, ~ ~, . , d . ~
,~ ~, x ~I >
~~. ~. ~.
~_ ~ ~ ~ ~
_,
:. - ., _ .
w
~s, ~~~ -
~ ~ ~,,.
r ; ~ ~- -
` ~ ~ ~.. •~
Big Cedar Creek -near top of project. High sh~
stress forces cause bank instability, resulting in
of bank vegetation.
~~
Big Cedar Creek -near center of project. High
erodibility and lack of surface protection results in
shear, unstable banks.

.~
~ ,:,,
a =
-.~
S~pv j J
~
~'~t , w ~~ ~~
.

~n~~~~4
~~~f ~..~+1~~.
a.W~ ~
.' ;
A'~9j~~
~
~. _ ~„ ~f ~ Y~~~
H

.~~. ... F ~ YV ~ .Q ..

Big Cedar Creek -cattle access point. Continuous Big Cedar Creek -near center of project. High
bed and bank disturbance causes fine sediments to near bank stress results in shear, unstable left bank.
bank.
Big Cedar Creek -typical. Long, straight, shallow Big Cedar Creek -near Mount Zion Road culvert.
pool with vegetation dominated by invasive Mass aggradation in overly wide channel.
species.

,;~;
~v`~' `I
a~- .aP%c`
UT1. High shear stress forces cause bank UT1 -typical. Historic agricultural manipulation
instability, resulting in loss of bank vegetation. resulted in a straight channel lacking bedform
diversity. Agricultural activities today come within
feet of the channel.
'~;x•~ ~ ~ +~ a ~^ ~ !i~ c ; ; P~+~
H.. ~ ~~ r ` ..~I
~?, ~ ~ +~ s
w
r.r ~ .~ 2 '' k ~ n , R C ~1'~'^ ~~
~.~a~ t y ;f ~,,,
h ~
,~y~ r ~ ~
~~ v
df ~~ ~gy~,,' ~~Mr «~~ vJY rR~I.y
ti 7 _. ~r 1•~.'t
T„I~ ~ fig,
UTl -typical. Max depth in pools is controlled by UT1 -below agricultural crossing. Continuous
bedrock, resulting in wide, shallow pools. bed and bank disturbance resulted in a lack of bed
definition.
UT2 -agricultural crossing and shear, unstable
banks below.

~.~
. ~ ;~
„ ~.~ ~-
._:
~~
•.
~.:-.~
~'""~".
=..

~.
~ ~=.
;~

Feature
Stream T
e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Riftlc E4/1 36.7 163 2.3 2.8 7.1 1.8 >7.8 240.6 242.7
____...-._._.~ _.
246
245 1
__ _____~_____._.
244
~ 243
--------------------------- -----------
0
'~
242
,
~ 241 ____
w 240
239
238

237
100 150 200 250 300
Station
- - O - - Bankfull - - O - - Floodprone
Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 1 Xl

Feature
Stream T e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Pool 43.U 13.5 3.2 3.8 4.2 1.3 240.6 241.9
247 -

246
245
244
c 243
•~ 242
~ 241
w 240
239
238
237
236

100 150 200 250 300 350
Station
- • O - - Bankfull
Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 1X2

Feature Stream T e BKF Area Width De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev Elev
Pool 63.2 19.9 3.2 42 6? 1.5 235.8 238.0

240 --
239
238
~ 237
'~ 236 --------
_'~_, 235
w
234
233
232
231
100 120 140 160 180
Station
- - O - - Bankfull
200 220 240 260
Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 2 X3

!' 1 ~ ~t
~" l~ ~~
~I.. ~" ~ _
ti I
•~s.r
~ Rift7e ~ B4/lc ~ 39.7 ~ 22.0 ~ 1.8 ~ 2.6 ~ 12.2 ~ 1.9 ~ 1.5 ~ 234.6 ~ 236.9 ~
242
240
0 238
~ 236
-----
w 234
232
230
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Station
• - O - - Banklull - - O - - Floodpronc
Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 2X4

BKF BKF Max BKF TOB
Feature Stream T e BKF Area Width De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev Elev
Pool 47.6 20.4 2.3 3.3 89 1.4 229.0 230.2
232 ----------
231
230
c
•° 229 -------
w 228
227
226
225
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Station
- - O - - Bankfull
Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 3 X5

' Z'~`~~
~'~3 d 4,a •f~
,~ _ ~; .~;
~a~..~y=
~~
~ ~ ~.
! _~~~,
:~
L1
~~.
~'-
~Ny~,yt~ _: .
~~ ~ _

Feature
Stream T
e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Rif11e C4/1 32.8 19.5 1.7 2.7 11.5 1.6 >5.7 226.7 228.3
231
__- _ -_.--- __._~.______--- ~ ______-_._______
230

229 ------------------------------------------ O
0 228
227
-------

w 226
225
224
223

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Station
- - O - - Bankfull - - O - - Floodprone
Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 3X6

Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 4 X7

Feature
Stream T
e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Riffle C4/1 47.1 29.6 1.6 2.3 18.5 1.6 >3.7 220.0 221.5

230 --- _~__... ___~..__.
228
226
.
224
ro
°' 222 ------ ------------------------------------------
w
220 ------......
218

216
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station
- - d - - Bankfull - - O - - Floodprone

«~.;~~~'
Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 4X8
.~ s ,.
~_,,~. ~~
~;
1 r ,' '~
eye ~:. "" i~a 1~R ~ Q ~ ... 1 ,.
y~ _ y..1 ~
~~~_ ;'

Feature
Stream T e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Pool 50.1 25.5 2.0 3.4 12.8 1.4 215.8 217.2
___ ~.__
230 -------_ -.
228
226
224
0 222
220
W 218
216 --------
214
212
210

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station
- - O - - Bankfull
•~ ~ -
*i~ ,
~~ ..'
YX ~ ~
p~
~" ~
~„~.
~~, ~ '
_•

Feature Stream Ty pe BKF Area Width ~ Depth ~
_. Depth ~ W/D ~ BH Ratio ~ ER ~ BKF Elev~ Elev
Riffle B3/lc 41.E 26 ; 1.6 23 16.4 1.5 >2.0 208.0 ~ 2093

218
216
214
c
.ro
° 212
~» 210
w
208
206
204
-----------------------------------------------------0
100 I10 120 130 140 150
160 170
Station
13ankfull ~~ Floodprone
Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 5 X9

f
~'°
r~~.
r'
F+ z"
~'<-, ,
~g ~ "
,~e~,~
a~
r .~
'"~-
•,
~• *'
~ ~ t
s }
§Y *~~r~~ d1 ~S
X. - ~ ~
r
Y
~ r' L )i
+*7 •~°
!;
•. '+ y
..St~+~ w°yt s
,, ., . ~ . -
.,,.
.: ~~,
.~
- . ~~`
~~ -
•~
3
,
r
` .r
~
~
'~
,,, .
~~ . `
.~
E"'~' • ~~t y~
v' r ~7 Y; r

p ~ M1~, o~ ~
k .
'
T 1 ~- '
Feature Stream T e BKF Area Width De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev Elev
Ri111e F3/1 60.9 25.6 2.4 3.1 10.7 2.2 1.2 202.3 2061
212 __~._.______- __~_.__~..~_.____-,
I
210
208
° 206
-~a --------------
204
w
202 ----•-------
200
198
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station
- - O - - Bankfull - - O - - Floodprone
Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 6X10

w }, ~`}~` •`,~
~~~ l`~ ~ i
a• a _tf^si-__
~ ~
~ _~
f-. r, ...
""
,°:
.~
~, }
„fir
~`
~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~
r ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ € ~ ":'~~1
P
yy t ~ ;!~.
~F ~ ~ g ~
~ a ~
~~
p'""1-
- -.. _ r-~
w.
a .,~~
,~~
~`•

Feature
Stream T e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Pool 54.3 31.2 1.7 3.2 18.4 1.9 201.8 204.6
_.-_ _ .~___~_~ -_--
212 - -_
210
208
a
.
206
~
W 204

202 ----------
200

198
90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290
Station
- - O - - Bankfull
Cross-section Data: BCC Reach 6X11

.' ]"~ A
~~ _~
~~~ ~~t"
n `
.. ~ `''e,
~~~_~
,,•,~~'

Feature Stream T e BKF Area Width De'th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev Elev
Riffle G4 10.8 9.2 1.2 1.6 7.7 1.3 >15.5 246.3 246.8
249 -- -.--.__....__.._..__.._.._._
248.5
248 --------------------------------------------------------------
~ 247.5
.~
247
'~, 246.5
w __
246
245.5
245
244.5
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station
- - O - • Bankfull - - O - - Floodprone

Cross-section Data: UT2 Reach 1X1

Feature
Stream T e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Pool 11.5 11.4 1.0 2.2 11.4 L4 242.8 243J
~ _ _.__.__..___~..._____
246 ,-__._ __ _ ~.__
245
~ 244
0
243 .. _

w
242
241

240
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station
O - - Bankfull
Cross-section Data: UT2 Reach 1X2

/' E~~.
~~k

_.:, -; ~r
<; at` a "'
,.,c tip;*~ :• ~~~.
r} ° I ~" ' 4
i~~~l~ q1
,~P .
'~'• "~ • ~, v', w ~
r .,, ~r-•:-•

Feature
Stream T
e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Riffle C4/1 1~.4 15.9 0.8 1.S 23.6 L6 >7? 263.6 264.64
--
267 - ---_---
266
---------------------------------------------------- O
a 265
0
264

w 263
262 ~

261
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Station
- - o • - Bankfull - - O - - Floodprone

Cross-section Data: UT1 Reach 1X3

+9
~, ,:
Feature Stream T e BKF Area Width De Ch lle th W/ll BH Katio 1/x t~xr~ Gtev >/tev
Pool C4/ 1 15.3 9.3 1.6 2.2 5.8 2.2 259.8 262.28
265 ..._._____~__.~_.__.._._.-_ _-____.,_
264
263
0 262
~ 261
w 260 ..
259
258
257
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station
- - O - - Bankfull
.~ n _ ~. ~K
.. ~ [ ~ il,.
.-. 1
x
Cross-section Data: UT1 Reach 1X4

Feature Stream T e BKF Area Width De ~th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev Elev
Pool E4/1 16.6 10 1.7 21 6.0 2.2 248J 25136

254
253
252
0 251
~ 250
w 249 __
248
247
246
100 120 140 160 18(l 200
220 240
Station
O - -13ankfull
Cross-section Data: LJT1 Reach 2 XS

Feature
Stream T e
BKF Ar~;a BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Rif17c E4/1 18.5 13.1 1.4 2.2 9.4 21 3.7 248.1 250.57
.____--___.------ -..
254 - -__-A- ____
253
252
~ 251
'~ 250
'~, 249
~
W 248 -_-_
247
246
245
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station
- - O - - Bankfull - - O - - Floodpronc
Cross-section Data: UT1 Reach 2X6

Feature Stream T e BKF Area Width De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev Elev
Riffle C4/1 209 17.6 1.2 2.4 14.7 1.4 >6.5 236.6 237.45

240
239
238
.~
° 237
~' 236
w
235
234
233

100 120 140 160 180 200
220 240
Station
Bankfull - - O - - Floodpr~~ne
Cross-section Data: UT1 Reach 3 X7

Cross-section Data: UT1 Reach 3X9
~:~~;
~'
~p~ -
~ ,y
t +l` " „, r
~ 'f ~,. ~~
.- ~
~. ~ ~
d M3 ~ ~ " tl
~~ ~'
x.
z ~ . I~ ~
2A~p t ~ :J J,t *~' ~,7
~. •Mr g r ., a .

Feature
Stream T e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Pool C4/1 21.6 14.5 1.5 2.l 9.7 1.9 233 234.95
_ -
237 -_._--____...._____-._-~_.
236
235
.
234
~
w 233 --'°----

232
231

230
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Station
- - O - - Banklull

L1\l Ll\l lvl(lA L111 a vL
Feature Stream T e BKF Area Width De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev Elev
Pool C4/ 1 39.> 21.0 1.9 3.0 111 1.4 3.9 216.1 217.21
230
228
226
~ 224
'ro 222
,~ 220
w 218
216 '~-~~
214
212
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station
- - O - - Bankfull
Cross-section Data: UT1 Reach 4X12

Feature
Stream T
e
BKF Area 13KF
Wid[h 13KF
De th Max I3KF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOl3
Elev
Rilflc C4/1 22.6 23.1 1.0 1.8 231 1.8 3.U 215.4 216.85
224 -.__._...__---------------------- _--
222
~ 220
0
~ 218

w
216
214
212

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Station
- • d - - I3ankfull - - O - - Floodprone
Cross-section Data: UT1 Reach 4X13

Big Cedar Creek Longitudinal
Profile Chart -Part 1
~cn
~
1 GJV
' 245
1
'
240
1
235
F
'
~~

' W 230
t 225
1
220
1
215

950 1150 1350 1550 1750 1950 2150 23
.SO 2550 2750
Station
-TWG -- LTB RTB - WSF * RBF • LBF ~-Determined BF

240
235
230
~ 225
0
..,
a~
w 220
215
210
205
2750
Big Cedar Creek Longitudinal
Profile Chart -Part 2
- TWG - LTB RTB - WSF ~ RBF • LBF ~ Determined BF
3250 3750 4250 4750 5250
Station

UT1 Longitudinal
Profile Chart -Part 1
ego
275
270
265
0
.~
~ 260
w
255
250
245
240
900
Station
- TWG - LTB RTB - WSF + RBF + LBF + Determined BF
1400 1900 2400 2900 3400

UT1 Longitudinal
Profile Chart -Part 2
250
245
240
235
230
0
. *.,
~ 225
w
220
215
210
205
200
3500
4000
4500
5000
Station
- TWG LTB RTB ----- WSF * RBF • LBF + BKF from X-Section
5500
6000

250
248
246
~ 244
0
.~
m
a~
W 242
240
238
236
UT2 Longitudinal
Profile Chart
- ..:.-.~
~~\
\~
1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550
Station
+TWG -LTB RTB • WSF I)~~~rrminedBF
1600

Location: Big Cedar Creek Reach 1
Field Cre~ SEG
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(note station
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT {~Om ~~? ~ detailed design needs) ={CxpxE)
D D 23 0.0
Mod Mod-High 3.50 02 22 2D.8
Mod Low 4.75 0. 15 6.4
Mod Low 4.50 0. 28 1i.3
Mod Low 4.50 U. 11 4.5
Rootwad Rootwad 11 0.
Mod Low 4.50 0. 18 7.3
Rootmass Rootmass 10 0.
Mod Mod 5.75 0.1 10 10.4
High V. High 4.50 0. 18 64.
Mod Low 4.50 0. 11 4.
Mod Low-Mod 5.00 0.1 20 13.5
Mod Low 4.50 0_ 12 4.8
Mod Mod 4.00 0.1 30 21.
High Mod 4.00 0• 35 42.

V. Low
V. Low
3.00 0.01
18
0.8
D D 23 0.0
Mod Mod 4.00 0.1 21 15.1
TOTAL FT3/YR 227.8
Divide FT3tyr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 8.4

Multiply YD3/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 11.0
Date: 3/23/2007
RI HT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(note station
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT l~~ curve} for detailed design needs) =(CxDxE)
Mod Mod-High 4.25 02 23 ~•
V. Low Low 3.75 0 22 1-
Mod Mod 3.75 o.i 15 10.1

Low
Low-Mod
4.50 0.051
28
6.
Low Low 4.50 ~ 11 1.7
Rootmass Rootmass 11 0.
Mod Low 4.50 ~ 18 7.
Rootmass Rootmass 10 0.0
0.
Low-Mod Low 5.75 10 3
Low V. Low 4.50 0. 18 1
Mod Mod 4.25 0.! 11 8.4

V. Low
V. low
3.75 -0.01
20
1.1
Low-Mod Low 3.25 "0' 12 2.f
Low Low 3.00 0. 30 3.1
V. Low Low 3.00 0• 35 2.1
Low Low 4.50 0 18 2
D D 23 0.

V. Low
V. Low
1.50 'O.Ot
21
0.5
TOTAL FT3/YR 78.4
TOTAL YD3/YR 2.9
TOTAL TONS/YR 3.8
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET

Location: Big Cedar Creek Reach 2
Field Crea SEG
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(note station ~
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT ~~~'[~N@~ for detailed design needs) =(CxDxE)
U
Low Low 4.00 21 2.9
0.
Low Low 2.75 15 1.4
0.
Low Low 3.25 13 1.4
0.1
Mod Mod 4.00 17 12.2
0
Mod High 3.75 16 22.8
0.
V. Low Low 3.25 28 1.8
0.
Low Low 3.50 16 1.9
~'
Low Mod 3.75 19 4.9
0.
V. Low Low-Mod 2.50 17 1.0
0.1
Mod Mod 4.00 19 13.7
Rootmass Rootmass 9 0.0
Rootmass Rootmass 7 0.0
0
Low-Mod Low 3.75 14 2.9
02
Mod Mod-High 4.00 20 2i.6
U.
Low Low 3.75 17 22
0~
Mod High 3.75 15 21.4
0.
Mod Low 5.75 24 12.4
0.~
Mod Mod 5.00 30 27.0
0.
Low Low 5.00 13 2.2
0
Low Low 5.50 26 4.9
0.1
Mod Mod 4.25 47 36.0
0.1
Mod Mod 425 23 17.8
0.
Mod Low 4.50 18 7.3
0.
High High 3.75 23 43.1
Date: 3/28/2007
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(note station
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT H.
lN~ ~ for detailed design needs) ~(CxDXE)
0.1
Mod Mod 3.00 21 11.3
~'
Low Mod 2.50 15 2.6
0.
V. Low Low-Mod 1.75 13 OS
0.
Mod Low 5.50 17 8.
OA1
V. Low V. Low 5.00 16 1.2
0.1
Mod Mod 5.00 28 252
U.
Mod High 5.00 16 30.4
~~
Low Low 5.00 19 32
OA61
Low Low-Mod 4.25 17 3.7
0
Low Low 4.50 19 2
0.1
Low-Mod Mod 4.75 9 4.3
Rootmass Rootmass 7 0.0
Mod Low 5.50 ~~ 14 6.9
U.051
Low Low-Mod 5.00 20 5.1
4.01

V. Low
V. Low
4.00 .
17
1.0
~~
Low-Mod V. Low 4.00 15 2.4
0
Mod High 5.75 24 52.4
0~
Mod Low 5.00 30 13.5
p.1
Mod Mod 5.00 13 11.7
fl2
Mod-High Mod 5.75 26 37.4
'D.2
High Low-Mod 5.00 47 56.4
~'~
Mod Mod 4.00 23 18.6
Rootmass Rootmass 18 0.0
D D 23 0.0
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET

Location: Big Cedar Creek Reach 2
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(note station
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT (from ~~} for detailed design needs) =~CXDXE}
0
Mod Low 4.00 18 6.5
0'
Mod Low 4.50 25 10.1
Q.
High Mod-High 5.25 10 21.0
0'0
Low V. Low 4.25 22 1.9
0.
Low-Mod Low 4.50 15 3.7
0.1
Mod Mod 4.50 33 28.7
0.
Low Mod 5.00 28 9.5
0.1
Mod Mod 5.75 11 11.4
UA51
Low Low-Mod 5.75 18 5.
0.
Mod Low 6.00 24 '13.0
01
Mod Mod 6.25 31 34.9
Q
Mod Low 6.00 42 22.7
Low-Mod Low 5.25 22 8.4
0'2
Mod Mod-High 6.00 37 59.9
0.1
Mod Mod 5.75 47 48.6
D D 56 0.
0.
Hi h V. Hi h 5.50 39 171.6
High High 5.50 0 24 66.0
0.
Mod Low 4.75 29 12.4
~
Mod Low 4.00 28 10.1
V. Low Low 3.75 0' 13 1.(}
TOTAL FT3/YR 805.1
Divide FT31yr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 29.8

Multiply YD3/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 36.s
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(note station
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT ~ del for detailed design needs) =.(CxDxE~
O.i
Mod Mod 5.00 18 162
~~
Mod Low 4.00 25 8.
0.
Mod Low 4.25 10 3.8
' 0.1
Mod Low-Mod 5.00 22 14.
02
High Low-Mod 5.75 15 20.
~ 0.
Mod Low 5.75 33 17.1
0'1
Mod Low-Mod 5.00 28 18.
O.i
Mod Mod 6.00 11 11.9
02
High Low-Mod 5.75 18 24.8
02
Mod Mod-High 5.75 24 37.3
~ O.f
Mod Mod 6.25 31 34.9
~
Mod Low 6.25 42 23.6
0
Low Mod 5.00 22 7
0
Mod Low 5.75 37 19.1
Low-Mod Low 5.00 ~ 0 47 12.
~
Mod High 5.75 56 122.4
~
Mod Low 5.00 39 17.
~
Mod Low 5.25 24 11.3
p'
Mod V. Low 4.75 29 5
0`
Mod Low 4.00 28 10.1
Rootmass Rootmass 13 0.0
TOTAL FT3/YR 736.6
TOTAL YD3/YR 27.3
TOTAL TONS/YR 35.5

Location: Big Cedar Creek Reach 3
Field CreH SEG
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(note steuon
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT (~~ rauve) for detailed design needs) =(GxDxE)
Mod Mod 3.50 0.1 38 23:
Mod Mod 4.25 0.1 41 31.4
Mod Mod 5.50 0.1 35 34.7
Low Mod 6.00 0 OB 25 10
Mod Low 6.00 0. 12 &.
Low Low 3.75 ~• 13 1 •
Hi h Hi h 6.00 0. 35 105.
Mod Hi h 6.00 0. 25 57.
Hi h Low 6.25 0.1 37 41,
Mod-Hi h Low 4.25 0.1 30 19.1
V. Hi h Hi h 5.00 0• 1 B A5.
Mod Low 6.00 0. 15 8.1
Rootmass Rootmass 19 0.
Mod Low 3.75 0. 22 7.4.
Mod Mod-Hi h 3.75 0.2 16 16
Low-Mod Mod 4.00 p 1 25 10.

V. Low
V. Low
2.75 0.01
18
0.
Low Law 3.50 0. 25 3.0
Mod Mod 3.75 0.1 27 18.2
Rootmass Rootmass 15 0.0
Mod Low 4.50 0. 20 8.1
D D 26 0
Mod V. Low 3.75 0. 32 4.
Low Low 3.50 0• 18 2.1
Rootmass Rootmass 16 0.
Low Mod 3.00 t) -44A -~•
Low Mod-Hi h 3.75 0~1 92 34.5
Date: 3/28/2007
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(notesteuon t
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT (from off) forderaiied design needs) s(CxpxE)
Mod Mod-Hi h 3.75 t]2 38 ~•
Mod Low 4.50 0. 41 16:
Mod Mod 4.50 ~~ 1 35 28.4
Mod Mod 6.00 .0.1 25 27•
Mod Low 6.00 0. 12 8.
Low Low 3.75 ` Q'~ 13 1 •
Mod Hi h 4.75 U.3 35 63•
Mod Hi h 4.00 0.3 25 38.
Mod Low 4.75 0. 37 15.
Mod Mod 4.25 0.1 30 23.
D D 18 0.

Low-Mod
Low-Mod
5.50 OA7
15
8.4
Mod-High Mod 5.50 0. 19 26.1
Hi h Mod 4.25 0 22 28.1

V. Low
V. Low
4.25 °.ai
16 1.
D D 25 0.
V. Low V. Low 2.75 0A1 18 0.7
Mod Mod-Hi h 4.25 0.2 25 28.
Low Low 4.00 27 3.7
Rootmass Rootmass 15 0•
D D 20 0.
Mod Mod 3.75 0.1 26 17.
Low Low 3.50 0. 32 3•
Low-Mod Low 3.50 x_05 18 3•
Low Mod 4.00 t). 16 4.4
Low Low 4.25 0• -44 ~•4
D D 92 0.
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET

Location: Big Cedar Creek Reach 3
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(note station
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT (~ ~8) tordetailed design needs) a(CYDxE)
0.02
V. Low Mod 3.75 13 1.2
D.
Low Low 3.75 25 3.
0.13
Mod Low-Mod 3.75 13 6.
D.
Low V. Low 2.50 19 1.
D.1
Mod Mod 2.50 26 11.7
0.
Low Mod 3.75 42 10.7
O.D
V. Low Low 3.00 20 1.
0.
V. Low Low 2.75 17 0.
0.
Mod Low 4.25 15 5.
0.
Hi h V. Hi h 4.00 13 41.6
D.
Mod Hi h 4.00 15 22.
0.
Low Low 3.75 16 2.0
0.01
V. Low V. Low 1.75 8 0.
0.1
Mod Mod 3.50 27 17.
0.
Hi h Mod-Hi h 3.75 20 30.
0.
Mod-Hi h Hi h 3.50 30 42.0
D D 11 0.0
D D 53 0.0
0.
Hi h Hi h 4.25 21 44.
0.
Hi h Mod-Hi h 4.25 30 51.
D.
Hi h Mod-Hi h 3.25 27 35.1
0.1
Mod Mod 3.50 26 16.4
0.03
Low Low 3.00 28 2.
D.
Mod Low 4.25 37 14.
D.D
Low V. Low 2.00 15 0.
D D 29 0.
Rootmass Rootmass 25 0.
0.1
Mod Mod 3.00 26 14.
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(rrotestadon ~
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT ($A!'I7 rxava) for detailed design needs) w(tr1cDXE]
0
Low Mod 3.75 13 3.
fl'
Low Low 3.75 25 3.
0'
Low Low 4.00 13 1.
0,
Low Mod 3.50 19 4.5
D.
Mod V. Low 3.50 26 3.
Rootmass Rootmass 42 0.
0.1
Mod-Hi h Low 3.75 20 11.3
D D 17 0.
D D 15 0.
D D 13 0.
p'2
Mod Mod-Hi h 4.75 15 19.
q.2
Mod Mod-Hi h 4.50 16 19.4
Rootmass Rootmass 8 0.
0.
Mod Low 3.00 27 7.
0.2
Mod Mod-Hi h 3.75 20 20.3
0.
Mod Low 3.75 30 10.1
0.1
Mod Mod 3.25 11 6.4
D.
V. Hi h V. Hi h 5.00 53 212.
D D 21 0.
Q'
Mod Low 4.25 30 11.
D D 27 0.
~'
Low Low 3.25 26 2.
D.
Low Mod 3.50 28 8.
0.1
Low-Mod Mod-Hi h 3.50 37 19.
0.1
Mod Mod 4.00 15 10.
0.1
Mod Mod 3.00 29 15.
D D 25 0.
0.
Mod Low 3.50 26 8.2

Location: Big Cedar Creek Reach 3
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
(!torn t~1tVe) DISTANCE(note station
tar detailed design needs)
m(Cxt)xE}
Low-Mod Mod-Hi h 3.00 0~1 51 23.
D D 37 0.
Low Hi h 3.00 0.1 27 11.3
Bedrock Bedrock 15 0.
D D 17 0.
Bedrock Rootmass 53 0.
Low Mod 2.25 0.08 30 4.
Mod Low 2.75 0. 13 3.
D D 32 0.
D D 61 0.

V. Low
V. Low
3.00 O.Oi
62
2.
D D 23 0,
D D 33 0.
Mod V. Low 3.50 0. i 6 2.
Rootmass Boulder 77 0.
V. Low V. Low 3.00 0.01 32 1.
Mod Low 3.00 0. 15 4.1
Low V. Low 2.50 0~0 15 0.8

V. Low
V. Low
2.50 0.01
17
0.
Rootmass Rootmass 26 0.
Low-Mod Mod 3.00 0~1 27 8.1
Rootmass Boulder 80 0.
TOTAL FT3/YR 919.0
Divide FT3tyr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 34.0
Multiply YD3/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 44.2
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
(~ ~+~$) DISTANCE(notestation
for detailed design needs) r
=(CxDxE}
D D 51 0.
Mod Mod-Hi h 3.00 0.2 37 30.
D D 27 D.
D D 15 0.
Bedrock Rootmass 17 0.
Bedrock Rootmass 53 0.
D D 30 0.
Low V. Low 1.00 ~ 13 0.3
V. Low V. Low 1.00 0'01 32 0.
V. Low V. Low 2.00 0'01 61 1.
V. Low V. Low 2.25 R.01 62 2.1
D D 23 0.
V. Low V. Low 2.75 D.01 33 1.
V. Low V. Low 2.75 0.01 16 0.
Rootmass Boulder 77 0.
V. Low V. Low 1.75 0.01 32 0.
V. Low Low 2.00 D. 15 0.
No erosion No erosion 15 0.
V. Low V. Low 2.25 17,01 17 0.
Rootmass Rootmass 26 0.0
Rootmass Rootmass 27 0.
Rootmass Rootmass 80 0.
TOTAL FT3/YR 812.3
TOTAL YD3/YR 30.1
TOTAL TONS/Y 39.1

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
Location: Big Cedar Creek Reach 4
Field Crew: SEG
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
Date: 3/28/2007
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
~~ curve) DISTANCE(note station
for detailed design needs)
=(C%DXq
Mod Mod 3.75 U.1 32 21.6
Mod Low-Mod 3.00 0.1 39 15.8
Mod Mod-High 3.25 0.2 34 29.8
V. Low V. Low 2.50 0.04 42 1 8
Low V. Low 2.25 0.0 74 3.3
Rootmass Boulder 28 0.0
D D 29 0.0

V. Low
V. Low
2.25 0.01
32
'~ .1

V. Low
V. Low
2.25 0.01
40
1.4
Mod Low 4.50 0. 40 16.2
Rootmass Rootmass 21 OA
D D 25 0.0
D D 34 0.0
Wingwall Wingwall 21 0.0
TOTAL FT3/YR 90.8
Divide FT3/yr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 3.4
Multiply YD3/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 4.4
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
{~ Vie) DISTANCE(note station
for detailed design needs)
a{CxDxE)
Low Mod 3.00 A. 32 B
Bedrock Bedrock 39 0.
V. Low Low 1.25 0. 34 0.9
V. Low Low 1.75 U.0 42 1.5
No erosion No erosion 74 0.
Low-Mod Mod 4.75 0.1 28 13.
Low Mod 3.00 0. 29 5.9
D D 32 0.0
V. Low V. Low 2.25 '4.01 40 1.4
Low Low 5.00 D 40 8.
Low Low 4.50 0 21 32
Mod Low 3.75 0 25 8.4

V. Low
V. Low
2.00 D.D1
34
1.
Wingwall Wingwall 21 DA
TOTAL FT3/YR 48.9
TOTAL YD3/YR 1.8
TOTAL TONS/YR 2.4

i i . r i i ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~
Location: Big Cedar Creek Reach 5
Field CreN SEG
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
Date: 3/28/2007
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
(~ curve) DISTANCE(note station
for detailed design needs)
s(CxDxE}
No erosion No erosion 31 0.0
Mod V. Low 2.5 0. 68 6.8
No erosion No erosion 154 0.0
Mod High 2.5 0.3 69 65.6
Mod High 3.5 0. 27 35.9
High Mod-High 4.8 U. 24 45.6
Bedrock Boulder 29 0.0
Bedrock Boulder 26 OA
Bedrock Boulder 53 0:0
No erosion No erosion 24 0.0
TOTAL FT3/YR 153.9
Divide FT3/yr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 5.7
Multiply YD3/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 7.4
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
8K HEIGHT
f~~ ~®) DISTANCE(note station
for detailed design needs)
=(G~caxE3
Wingwall Wingwall 31 0.
D D 68 0.
No erosion No erosion 154 OA
No erosion No erosion 69 OA
No erosion No erosion 27 0.
V. Low V. Low 4.0 0.01 24 1.
Low V. High 4.5 0.2 29 36.5
High V. High 4.0 0 26
V. High V. High 4.0 ~~ 53 189.8
No erosion No erosion 24 OA
TOTAL FT3/YR 290.8
TOTAL YD3/YR 10.8
TOTAL TONS/YR 14.0

Location: Big Cedar Creek Reach 6
Field Cretn SEG Date: 3/23/2007
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
~~ txtlVe} DISTANCE(note station
for detailed design needs)
=(CXRxE}
D D 38 0.
Low-Mod Low 7.00 0.05 43 18.
Low V. Hi h 7.50 0' 15 31.
Bedrock Bedrock 12 0.
Low-Mod Low 7.50 0.05 17 7.
Rootmass Bedrock 14 0.
Rootmass Bedrock 33 0.
Low Low 3.00 0' 19 t.
D D 19 0.
Low-Mod V. Low 3.25 0. 19 2.
Low Low-Mod 4.75 0.051 12 2:
V. Low Mod-Hi h 7.50 0. 24 7.
Low-Mod Mod 5.00 0.1 12 6.
Mod-Hi h Low-Mod 4.25 0. 7 8.
Mod Hi h 6.00 0.3 17 38.
Bedrock Bedrock 9 0.
Bedrock Bedrock 21 0:
Mod Low-Mod 5.00 .0.13 17 1'1
D D 51 0.
Low-Mod Low 4.75 0.05 20 5
Rootmass Rootmass 17 0.
D D 1 B IT.
Low-Mod Low 4.00 0'05 29 ti,
TOTAL FT3/YR 143.4
Divide FT3tyr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 5.3
Multiply YD3/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 6,9
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(note station
BEHI NBS BKHEIGHT (fromcuae} fordetauedde~ignneed~) ~{GxDx~
Rootmass Rootmass 38 0
0.1
Mod-Hi h V. Low 3.75 43 16.1
0.
Mod V. Low 3.75 15 2.
D D 12 0.
f].1
Mod Low-Mod 4.00 17 9.
¢ 13
Mod Low-Mod 5.75 14 10.
0.01
V. Low V. Low 6.75 33 3.3
0,
Hi h Mod-Hi h 6.00 19 80.
0'1
Mod Mod 7.00 19 23.
0.
Hi h Mod-Hi h 6.00 19 45.
;~,1
Hi h Low 5.75 12 12.
0.1
Hi h V. Low 5.75 24 13.
~~
Low V. Low 5.00 12 1.
~~
Mod V. Low 4.25 7 1.
D D 17 0.
D D 9 0.
q.01
V. Low V. Low 4.00 21 1.3
02
Mod Mod-Hi h 3.25 17 14.
0,1
Low Mod-Hi h 3.25 51 16.
0,13
Mod Low-Mod 5.00 20 13.
Wall Wall 17 0.
0.
Mod Low 5.00 18 8.1
Mod Low 4.25 0' 29 11.1
TOTAL FT3/YR 266.2
TOTAL YD3/YR 9.9
TOTAL TONS/Y 12.8

~ s ~ ! ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~
Location: UT1 Reach 1
Field CreH SEG Date: 3/23/2007
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
(from curve) DISTANCE(notestetion
fordetaled desi~ needs) ~
=(Cxpxf)
Mod V. Low 2.50 U. 30 3.

V. Low
V. Low
2.50 0.015
20
A.8
Low Mod 3.25 0. 28 8.
Mod Low 3.25 0. 29 8.

V. Low
V. Low
1.50 0.01
27
0.
V. Low Low 1.00 0.0 26 0.5
Low Low 2.00 0.03 60 4.1
D D 37 0.0

V. Low
V. Low
1.00 0.01
19
0.3
V. Low Low 1.25 0. 17 0.4

V. Low
V. Low
1.00 0.01
52
0.8

Low
Low
1.75 0.034
34
2.
Low Mod 1.75 0. 24 2.9
D D 26 0:
D D 14 0.0
D D 24 0.
D D 36 0.
D D 22 0.

Low
Low
2.25 0.034
23
1.8

V. Low
Low-Mod
1.50 0.023
42
1.4

V. Low
V. Low
1.25 O.o1
28
0.5
Low Low 1.00 0.03 12 0.
D D 69 0.0
D D 11 0.
D D 14 0.
D D 12 0.
Low Mod 2.00 0.06 13 1.
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(notasmtion ~
BEHI NBS BKHEIGHT (f~ou~) Mrdeteileadesignneeds) =(CxpxE)
0.1
Low Mod-High 2.50 30 7.5
O.t
Mod Low-Mod 3.00 20 8.1
0.
Mod Low 3.25 28 8.
0
Low-Mod Low 3.25 29 5.2
0:1
High Low 2.50 27 122
0.05
Low-Mod Low 2.00 26 2.8
0.
Low Low 2.00 60 4.1
D D 37 0.
~~
V. Low Low-Mod 1.00 19 - 0.4
0
V. Low Low 1.25 17 0.4
o.nt
V. Low V. Low 1.25 52 1.
0.
Low Low 1.75 34 2.
4A1
V. Low V. Low 1.75 24 0
D D 26 0.
0.1
Low-Mod Mod 2.25 t4 3.
D D 24 0.
0
High High 2.50 36 45.
Q.1
Mod Low-Mod 2.50 22 7.4
0.
Mod Low 2.50 23 5.
0
Low Low 1.75 42 2.
0.1
Mod Low-Mod 1.75 28 6.8
0.01
V. Low V. Low 1.25 12 0.
D D 69 0.
O.At
V. Low V. Low 1.25 11 0.
~
V. Low Low 2.00 14 0.
D D 12 0.
0.
Mod High 2.00 13 9.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ s
Location: UT1 Reach 1
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
(from curve) DISTANCE(note station
for detaYed design needs) Yr
=~CxOxE)

Low
V. Low
1.50 0.0
16
0.

Low
Mod-High
2.00 0.1
17
3.
Low-Mod Low 2.25 0. 10 1.2
Mod Mod 2.50 0.1 28 12.8
D D 10 0.

Mod
Low-Mod
3.00 0.13
25
10.1
Low Mod-Hi h 3.00 0.1 11 3.3
D D 16 0.
D D 15 0.
D D 38 0.0
V. Low Low 1.50 0.0 15 0.6
D 0 24 0.
D D 38 0.
D D 38 0.
D D 20 0.
D D 19 0.

V. Low
V. Low
1.50 0.01
37
0.

V. Low
V. Low
1.50 0.01
20
0.
Boulder Boulder 30 0.

V. Low
V. Low
1.25 0.01
18
0.3

V. Low
V. Low
1.25 0.01
35
0.7

V. Low
Low-Mod
1.25 a.o23
20
0.

V. Low
Low-Mod
2.25 0.02
28
1.
Low Low 2.25 Q.0.34 20 1.
Low Low 2.25 0.03 28 2.1

V. Low
Low
1.50 0.
41
1,

Low
Low-Mod
2.00 0.051
10
1.
V. Low Low 1.00 ~~ 13 0.3
D D 17 0.0
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(notestation Yr
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT (from cstrve) tot detailed design needs) s(CYpxE)
0. `
Low Mod 1.50 16 4.8
D D 17 0.
0.051
Low Low-Mod 2.25 10 1.4
0.01
V. Low V. Low 1.75 28 0.7
D.O4
V. Low V. Low 1.50 10 0.
0.01
V. Low V. Low 1.25 25 0.
D D 11 0.0
0.
V. Low Mod 2.00 18 0.
0.04
V. Low V. Low 1.00 15 0.2
0.
Low V. Low 2.00 36 1.5
0.
V. Low Low 1.50 15 0.
D D 24 0,
0.01
V. Low V. Low 1.00 38 0.
D D 38 0:0
0.01
V. Low V. Low 1.00 20 0.3
D D 19 0.0
0.
Low V. Low 1.75 37 4.3
0.04
V. Low V. Low 1.50 20 0.
Boulder Boulder 30 0.0
0.
V. Low Low-Mod 2.00 18 0.
0.~4
Low Low 2.00 35 2.4
d'
Low v. Low 2.00 20 a
D D 28 0.0
0.051
Low Low-Mod 2.25 20 2.3
~~
Low Low 2.00 28 4.9
Q~
Low Low 2.00 41 2.8
0.
Low Low 2.00 10 0.T
0.
Low Low 2.00 13 0.9
Woody Debri Woody Debris 17 0.0

~ ~ ~ ~
Location: UT1 Reach 1
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F
DISTANCE(note station r
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT ~ OU(Y6) fordetaded design needs) .{Gxl}kEj
0.
V. Low Low 2.00 49 2.
0.
Low V. Low 2.00 16 0.
Q.0
Low Low 1.50 30 1.
0.
V. Low Low 1.50 32 1.
0.01
V. Low V. Low 1.50 11 Q.
0.02
V. Low Mod 2.00 11 0.
D D 11 0.
Rootwad Rootwad 13 A
O.QS1
Low Low-Mod 2.00 11 1.1
D D 9 0,
U.
V. Low Low-Mod 1.75 10 fl.4
D D 17 0,
0.
Low Mod 2.75 10 t.
0.0
Low Low 2.00 6 0.
0.051
Low Low-Mod 1.50 10 0
0.
Low V. Low 1.75 23 0.
D D 23 Q-
0.
V. Low Low 1.50 14 -0.
0
Low V. Low 1.25 . 11 0.3
0.
Low Mod 1.50 14 1.4
Rootmass Rootmass 30 D.
U,
low-Mod V. Low 2.25 27 2.
Low V. Low 1.75 0. 23 0.
TOTAL FT3/YR 94.6
Divide FT3/yr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 3.5

Multiply YD3lyr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR a.s
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BKHEIGHT
{gorncurvo? DISTANCE(note station
tordetaileddesignneeds)
w~'Y.QxE7
V. Low Low 2.00 ~~ 49 2.

V. Low
V. Low
2.25 0.01
16
0.
Low Low 2.25 ~~ 30 2.3
Low-Mod Low 2.25 0. 32 4.
Low Mod 1.75 0. 11 1
Boulder Boulder 11 0.
Boulder Boulder 11 0.
Low Mod 2.25 ~ 13 2
Rootwad Rootwad 11 0
D D 9 0.
D D 10 0.
Mod Low 2.75 0. 17 4.
Low Mod 2.75 0. 10 1.
Low Mod-High 3.00 0.1 6 1.
Woody Debri Woody Debris 10 0
Low V. Low 1.75 0 23 0.
Boulder Boulder 23 ~ 0.
Low V. Low 2.00 ~ ~~ 14 0.

V. Low
V. Low
2.00 0.01
11
0.
Low V. Low 2.00 0. 14 0:
D D 30 0.
V. Low Mod 1.75 0` 27 i
Low Mod 1.50 ~' 23 2.
TOTAL FT3/YR 181.4
TOTAL YDs/YR 6.7
TOTAL TONS/YR 8.7

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s r w~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ar ~w ~ ~ ~
Location: UT1 Reach 2
Field CreH SEG Date: 3/23/2007
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
(ham ~) DISTANCE (note station
bt tleteiled Design needs)
a(CrcDxE)
Bedrock Bedrock 18 0.
Low Low 1.25 U. 34 1;4

V. Low
Mod
0.50 0.02
13
0.
D D 11 0:
V. Low Low 1.50 U. 24 0.7
D D 23 0:
D D 7 0:
Rootmass Bedrock 10 0.
Rootmass Bedrock 12 0:
Rootmass Bedrock 27 0.
Rootmass Bedrock 10 0.
Rootmass Bedrock 16 0
D D 29 0.
D D 1B 0.
Rootmass Boulder 11 0
Rootmass Boulder 22 0
D D 30 0.
Rootmass Boulder 26 0:

V. Low
V. Low
1.50 0.01
29
0.
D D 56 0.
D D 24 0.
RooLnass Rootmass 55 0.
No erosion No erosion 40 0.
D D 19 D.
D D 27 D.
D D 20 0.
TOTAL FT3/YR 3.0
Divide FT3/yr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 0.1
Multiply YD3/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR o.1
I
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
(hom curve) DISTANCE(note station
br detailed desgn needs)
s(GxDxE)
Low Low 1.75 4' 18 1.1
Low Low 1.25 0. 34 1.
Boulder Boulder 13 D.
V. Low V. Low 0.75 OAt 11 0,1
V. Low Low 0.75 U. 24 0.4
D D 23 0.
Low Mod 2.00 0. 7 1.
Rootmass Bedrock 10 0.
Mod Low-Mod 2.25 0.1 12 3.
Bedrock Bedrock 27 0.
Low-Mod Low 2.00 U. 10 t.1
V. Low Low-Mod 2.00 U. 16 0.7
Mod Mod-Hi h 3.25 D 29 25.4
Bedrock Boulder 18 0.

V. Low
V. Low
3.25 D.Oi
11
0.
Mod-High Hi h 4.00 0` 22 35.2
V. Low Low 2.50 D 30 1.
V. Low V. Low 2.50 0.01 26 t

V. Low
V. Low
2.50 0.01
29
1.1
D D 56 0.
Low Low 2.00 ' 0. 24 1
Bedrock Bedrock 55 0.
No erosion No erosion 40 0.
Low V. Low 1.25 ~ 19 0.6
Low Mod 2.00 U. 27 S:
Low-Mod Low 2.00 ~' 20 2
TOTAL FT3/YR 82.2
TOTAL YD3/YR 3.0
TOTAL TONS/YR 4.D

Location: UT1 Reach 3
Field CreN SEG
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
{ Vie) DISTANCE(note station
for detailed design needs)
a~CxDx~
D D 9 0.0
D D 15 D.
No erosion No erosion 43 0.0
D D 16 0
No erosion No erosion 13 X0.0

Low
Low-Mod
2.00 .0.061
15
1.5
D D 19 0.
Low High 2.25 0.1 11 3.5
D D 14 0:0
D D 20 0:
V. Low V. Low 2.00 0.01 19 Q.6
D D 11 0.0
D D 13 0.
D D 32 Q
Boulder Bedrock 103 'tl
Low Mod 3.50 ~~ 20 A.B
V. Low Low-Mod 2.00 0.02 21 `1A
V. Low V. Low 2.00 0A1 55 1.7
V. Low V. Low 2.00 OA1 24 0.
No erosion No erosion 11 0.0
Low V. Low 2.25 0.0 25 t.1
Rootwad Rootwad 15 0.0
Rootwad Rootwad 23 0.0
No erosion No erosion 20 0.
Date: 3/23/2007
RI HT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
{~XR ) DISTANCE(note station
~~ detailed design needs)
a{

V. Low
V. Low
2.25 0,01
9
0
Low V. Low 2.25 ~~ 15 4.7
No erosion No erosion 43 0
V. Low Low-Mod 1.50 0 16 0.
D D 13 0
V. Low V. Low 1.50 O.Q1 15 0
D D 19 OA
D D 11 0.
Low Mod 1.75 14 1.
Low V. Low 2.00 ~ 20 0
Low V. Low 2.00 ~~ 19 0.
D D 11 0
V. Low Low 1.25 ~ " 13 0
V. Low Low 1.00 32 0
Boulder Bedrock 103 0
Boulder Bedrock 20 0.0
V. Low V. Low 2.00 0.01 21 0
V. Low V. Low 2.00 OA1 55 1
No erosion No erosion 24 0.
No erosion No erosion 11 0
No erosion No erosion 25 0.
D D 15 0
Low Low-Mad 2.25 0.051 23 2
V. Low Mod-Hi h 1.00 0. 20 0
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET

~ ~ ~ ~
Location: UTi Reach 3
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT
{frown curve) DISTANCE(note station
for detailed design needs)
~(CXDxE)
Low Low 2.00 0. 31 2.1
No erosion No erosion 165 OA
No erosion No erosion 23 0.0'
No erosion No erosion 48 OA
Low V. Low 2.50 0. 36 i.8

V. Low
V. Low
2.25 0.01
59
2.
Low Mod 3.00 0. 25 5.1
Mod-High V. High 3.00 0. 11 26.
V. High V. High 4.00 0. 4 12.$
Hi h Mod-High 4.00 0. 20 32.
V. Low Mod 2.00 0.02 23 1.2
No erosion No erosion 20 0.0
D D 53 0
D D 22 0.
V. Low Mod-High 2.50 0. 17 1.7
V. Low Mod 1.75 0.02 13 0.6
V. Low Low 1.75 0.0 13 0.5
Xing Xing 7 0.0
TOTAL FT3/YR 100.9
Divide FT3/yr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 3.7
Multiply YD3/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 4.9
r . ~ . ~ ~ . +~^~
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT K.
~•~~ Cilfke) DISTANCE(note station
for detailed design needs)
m(C'ixf3x~
V. Low Low 1.00 0. 31 0.8
No erosion No erosion 165 0.
V. Low Low-Mod 1.00 t3.0 23 0.5
No erosion No erosion 48 0.0
V. Low V. Low 1.00 0.01 36 A.5
D D 59 0.
D D 25 0.
D D 11 OA
V. Low Mod 1.75 OA 4 02
Low Mod-High 3.00 0.1 20 B.0
No erosion No erosion 23 0.0
No erosion No erosion 20 0.0
Low Mod-High 2.25 0.1 53 11.9
Low High 2.00 0.1 22 B.2
Mod-High V. High 2.25 0. 17 30.6
Mod-High Mod 2.75 02 13 8.9
Low-Mod V. High 3.00 0. 13 15.6
Xing Xing 7 0.0
TOTAL FT3/YR 92.9
TOTAL YD3/YR 3.4
TOTAL TONS/YR 4.5

Location: UT1 Reach 4
Field Crev-SEG
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
Date: 3/23/2007
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT ET/~'R.
(~~ Vie} DISTANCE(note station
for detailed design needs) AL 3lyr
s(CxDxE}
D D 20 0.
D D 22 0.0

Low-Mod
Low
3.25 0.05
32
5.
Rootwad Rootwad 60 0.

V. Low
V. Low
3.25 0.01
11
0.
Low V. Low 3.25 0.0 21 i.4
V. Low V. Low 3.25 0.01 12 0-
Mod-Hi h Mod 3.50 0.2 25 21.
Mod Mod-Hi h 3.50 0.2 32 30.2
Mod Low-Mod 3.25 0.1 58 25.4
Hi h Hi h 3.75 0. 77 144.4
Mod Mod-High 3.75 0.2 28 28.4
Hi h Mod-Hi h 4.50 0' 11 19.8
Culvert Culvert 66 -0.
D D 22 0.
Bedrock Bedrock 19 0.
Low Low-Mod 2.00 O.OS1 58 5.
Mod High 2.50 0' 26 24.7
Mod V. Hi h 2.50 0.7 30 58.
Mod High 2.00 0. 20 15.2
D D 15 0.0
D D 23 0.0
TOTAL FT3/YR 382.6
Divide FT3/yr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 14.2
Multiply YD3/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 18.4
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT F ET/YR
(~ ) DISTANCE(notestation
for detailed design needs) ,T T tyr
sa(GxOxr=}
No erosion No erosion 20 0.
V. Low V. Hi h 4.50 ~~ 22 7.
D D 32 Q
D D 60 0,
V. Low Mod 2.25 0.02 11 0.
V. Low V. Low 2.25 OAi 21 0.
V. Low V. Low 2.50 Q.Q! 12 0.
D D 25 0.
D D 32 0,
No erosion No erosion 58 0
D D 77 0.
D D 28 0.
D D 11 0.
Culvert Culvert 66 t1.
Mod V. Hi h 5.00 0. 22 85.
D D 19 0.
Low Mod 3.25 0. 58 12.
D D 26 0.
D D 30 0.
D D 20 0.
D D 15 0.
Low-Mod High 3.00 p' 23 17.3
TOTAL FT3/YR 125.6
TOTAL YD3/YR 4.7
TOTAL TONS/YR 6.0

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~
Location: UT2
Field Cre~ SEG
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
Date: 3/23/2007
LEFT BANK
A B C D E F
F !YR DISTANCE(note station T TAL /yr
BEHI NBS BK HEIGHT ~~ arms) for detailed design needs) =(CxDxEj
0.0
Low V. Low 1.00 39 0.8
0.
Low-Mod Low 2.25 9 1.i
0.
Hi h V. Hi h 3.00 13 3t.2
0'1
Mod Mod 2.00 10 3.6
D D 11 0.0
0'
Hi h Hi h 3.25 14 22.8
0.05
Low-Mod Low 2.75 18 2.7
D D 9 0.0
D D 2 0.0
0.1
Mod Mod 2.25 13 5.3
D D 11 0.0
0
Mod High 3.00 t 1 12.5
0.
Low Low 2.50 20 1.7
0.0
Low V. Low 2.25 45 2.
0.
Low Low 2.25 8 0.
0.
High Mod-Hi h 3.00 17 20.4
02
Low-Mod Hi h 2.00 8 4.0
D D 9 0.0
D D 16 0.0
0.
High High 4.25 17 36.1
0.1
Mod Mod 4.00 21 15.1
Mod Mod 2.50 0'1 9 4.1
TOTAL FT3/YR 164.0
Divide FT3/yr by 27 TOTAL YD3/YR 6.1
Multiply YD3tyr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 7.9
RIGHT BANK
A B C D E F

BEHI
NBS
BK HEIGHT FE /YR
{imm cwve) DISTANCE(note station
for detailed design needs) TO
~(CkDx~
Low V. Low 1.00 ~~ 39 0.
V. Low Mod-Hi h 1.50 0. 9 0.5
D D 13 0.
D D 10 0.0
Hi h Hi h 3.50 U. 11 19.3

V. Low
V. Low
2.75 0.01
14
0.6
V. Low V. Low 2.00 OAi 18 0.5
Low-Mod Mod 2.50 0.1 9 2.3
Hi h V. Hi h 3.00 0. 2 4.8
V. Hi h High 3.00 0. 13 19.5
Hi h Hi h 3.00 0 11 i6.5
D D 11 0.
Low Low 2.50 0 20 1.
V. low Low 2.25 0. 45 2.0
D D 8 0.0
D D 17 0.0
D D 8 0,
Mod Mod-High 3.00 OZ 9 7:3
Extreme V. Hi h 4.00 16 3$4.a
D D 17 0.
Mod-Hi h Low 4.25 O.i 21 43.4
High Low 5.00 0'1 9 8:1
TOTAL FT3/YR 481.2
TOTAL YD3/YR 17.8
TOTAL TONS/YR 23.2

47- 1 ~ 1 ~
Appendix D
Reference Reach Survey Data and Photographs

UT to Rocky Creek -surveyed pool cross section.
This is a stable scour pool in a meander bend.
s ,~ ~~; r . ~ ~ „ ~~r,
A
~.1'.. ~ +e & as • -' ; 1 S
• 'r'~~jyp.~~(y~.
UT to Rocky Creek -looking upstream.

UT to Rocky Creek Profile
1003
1002
1001
1000
c
~ 999
w
998
997
996
995
Station
-•- TWG - LTB RTB -~ WSF
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250

Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature
T e
Area
Width
De th
De th WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E4b 16.3 12.2 1.3 1.8 J.1 LO 5.9 1000.3 1000.3
1003 ..__.. _._...._ _ ___ _ .._ __ --------_------_ _--- -
1007
1006
1005
0 1004
1003
w 1002 ---------------------------•---•---------...~_~
1001
1000 ~ - -
999
993

100 110 120 130 140 l50 l60 l70 l30 190 200
Station
- O - - [3ankfull - - O - - Floodprone

I rcature I I I I p I P I W/ll I I EK ItiKt~ hlevl I
Type Area Width De th De th Ratio Elev
Puol 19. ~ 10.9 L8 2.2 6.1 LO 995.5 998.E
100 110 120 130 140 150
Station
- - o - - Bankfull
1008
1006
1004
.~
1002
°~ 1000
W
998
996
994
160 170
U
Cross-section Data: UT to Rocky Creek -Pool

~ 7` ~° ~
Appendix E
Stream Identification Forms

1

y~ !- / / ~ ~~ ~ „ ~uF-- ?~e:,~ ~Y~' .,iN'~~~ ~i, ill,
J' .
• 0
t
_- ~ ~
<,.
,: - ,~,. E
_ : ~ F •..
Scptcmbcr ~U07 Stream Ills -Intermittent/
LEGEND Perennial Stream Calls
~- ~ __ J Towro of Norwood Streams Big Cedar Creek
0 Parcels Restoration Project
Project Area Stanly County, NC
Ecosystem
~~~-~"~, .~~ o aoo eoo ~ ~ •
EEP Project[ No.: D06054-D Feet

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

~ _..
1
1
1
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = Ot ~ ' Absent. ~,. Weak :~.. ':.Moderate, °:: St ~ng;~^
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 ~ 3
3. in-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorb 0 1 2
5. ActiveJrelic fkx>dplain 0 1 ~ 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 •
7. Braided.channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9' Natural levees 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drains ewe ~ 0 0.5 1 1.
13. Second or greater order channel on exi "n
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated(s~ee discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = -1'~

14. Groundwater flow/discha e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features) present? No 0 Yes =1.5
C. Bioi Subtotal = "'(

2 .Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 .Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1
2fi. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous ae; periphyton 0 1 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacterialfungus. 0 .5 1 ' 1.5
29 . 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.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for addidonai notes.)
------------~-- ~ f~ ~..fis `h~l. ~/~a
r.~,o- v~r~-k~.
1
1

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ,-1b Project: +~4~ ~~M Latitude:
Evaluator: Sits: ~ ~ Longitude:
Total Points: ~~...~ Other
Stream is at feast intermittent ` County: SAN ` e.g. Quad Name
11219 or rsnnial Ua 30 3 `` i
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = r'~ rs Absent _ Weak Moderate. StroQg:
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity - ~jt.t~ 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. AdiveJrelic floodplain 0 1 ~ 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided•channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9' Natural levees 0 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls titlJtt`IL 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or draina away 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on i i
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ~ ~
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches aro not rated; s/ee di~sc~ussions in manual
R I-haiminrni /C~ihfn4fll = (n i l l 1
14. Groundwater flow/discha e 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rows season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 .5 ~ 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximorphic features) present? No Yes =1.5
'^ ~
C` Rinlnnv !S~ ~htntal . I~y~ 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel ~• 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 .5 ~ 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 J.S~
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 .5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periph n 0 ~2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriaffu us. 0 1 ' 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other - 0
i
- items zo and zt torus on the presence of upland pants, uem zs focuses on the presence or aquaac ar weuana p~anus.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Verston 3.1
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
1 B. H drolo Subtotal = ~

Date: ~ ~ Project: .r C Latitude:
Evaluator: ~j~~.l~ Site: - Longitude:
Total Points: Oar
Stream is at least intermittent ~ ~ County: ~ e,g, Quad Name•
if 219 or n3nnlal if 2 30 ~ •
A. Geomo holo Subtotal= ~w.5 ` `_Absent,,~
~ r y..;Weak_r,;,, Moderate,. ~-$trong~.:
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuos ~ 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 3
5. ActiveJrelic flood lain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided.channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 2 3
9' Natural levees 0 2 3
10. Headcuts ~ 0 2 3
11. Grade controls ~ 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural vane or drains 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on ex '
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 3.
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, ~
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 ~ 1 2 .U3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 ~ 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines ' 0 0.5 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximo hic features present? No Yes =1.5
C. Biol (Subtotal = 'lid

20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0. 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0. 1 1.5
27. Fllamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizi baderia/fun us. 0 1 1.5
29 . 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:
j

North Carolina Divisidn of Water duality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

Date: s = r~ - Q"1 Project: ~~ ~'t~g • C'r~,~` Latitude:
Evaluator: p uv„e Cv site: A Longitude:
Total Points: ether
Stnaam is at least intermittent 1 i f D COUnty. ~ ~ 6,g, (w~ Name:
if>f9or nislifa30 I _`' `~'C;Y~ ~
A. Geomo bolo Subtotal = ~ -~ Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuos i 2 3
3. In-channel structure: rrffle-pool se usnce 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. De itional bars or benches ® 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 ° Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Heada~ts . 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or dreinageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ®
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
14. aroundwaterflow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, ~
Water in channel - d or rowin season ~
(% 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1. 1 0. 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18.Or anic debris lines or Iles rack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils redoximor hic features} present? No 0 Yes = 1.5
!~ Rinlnnv 1G Ihfnt7l . Iw ~
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0. 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0. 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and atwndance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eerie on 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- rcems za ana zi rocus on me presence or uprana piarns, i~em p rocases cm ides pr~srnlw vi ny~~~~ VI Irvua+lu ~,IQIIMI.
Sketch:
Notes: (use Gac~c side of this farm for additlonai notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water ~uatity -Stream lderrtification Form; Version 3.1
iDate: s" .r ,, O Project: ~ , ~~, ~~ r Clca ~,.aNtude:
V
Evaluator: ~( Uh~L ~ Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream !s at least intermittent + S ~ County: S~~, n f t e.g. Quad Name'
ff z 19 or nnfal tf z 30
A. Geomo polo Subtotal = ~ . Absent Weak Moderate Strong
i°. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. in-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 • 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sordn 0 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 1 2 3
9 ° Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts . 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 .5 t 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1' 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on ~jgq
USGS or NRCS rnap or other documented
evidence.
No ~0
Yes = 3
° Manmade ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
o u...a...~...... ~G.~.b.~~l. i ~\
14..Groundwater flow/dischar e 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, gF
Water in channel - d or rowi season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5
i 7. Sediment on larlts or debris 0 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or ilea rack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. H ric soils (redoximo hic features) present? No 0 Yes = 1.5
~` Qinlnrn~ lC~rh4nfsl . 'f ~ ~
20 Fitxous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted IaMs in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra sh 0.5 1 1.5
23. $ivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriaJfungus. 0.5 t 1.5
29 . Wetland lasts in streambed FAC = FACW = 0.75; OB!_ = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
"Items 20 and 21 foals On the presence of uplara plants, Item [5 foCUSes on me presence or aquauc w weuariu ~a~~w.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for addifi~onal notes.}

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Data: ,~ - ~ Project: ~ ;~ (~r~,,y..,_ Latitude:
Evaluator: ~, ~ ' a~ Site: Q CZ ~ Longitude:
Total Points: Other
SRream is at feast irttemilttertt ~ Z County: S' ~,~ ~ ~ e.g. Quad Name'
if Z f 8 a erennla! if Z 30
A. Geomor ho Subtotal = ~ Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit)r 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided Channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de ks 0 2 3
9' Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts . 0 1 2 Q7
11. grade controls 0 .5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or draina wa 0 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel an existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
N~
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are tx>< rated; see ~di/scu~.s/sbr~s in manual
Q 1~v'Irnlnnv /G,hfnfol - (a • _ ] ~
14. Groundwater fbwldischarge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, Q
Water in channel - d or rowan season 0 1 ~ 3
18. Leaflitter 1.5 C< 0.5 0
17. Sediment on IaMs or debris 0 0. 1 1.5
18.Or anic debris lines or Iles rack lines 0 .5 1.5
19. H drlc soils redoximorphic features) resent? No Yes = 1.5
(` Rinlnnv rCuhM4fl1 - ~. J 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1
23. Bivalves ® 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; i h n 1 2 3
28. Iran oxidizin bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland lasts in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other 0
ttems 20 and 21 cocas on the presence of upland prams, tram zs focuses on me presence yr aquanc or weuarti p~anw.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.}
ONL i /~
o/,.~~~ r~lXG' j hl /~
~ ~e~
Q~t. ~'~~ /~t'n 1
J~f, 9 ~r )
pr ~(..lO~!-.~ Qh

North Carolina Dhrision of Water Quality -Stream ldentiflcatlon Form; Version 3.1
Date: s - ~Q P ~ '~ Project: ~ ~•"~.~,! ~ Latitude:
Evaluator: ~ f'lo ~ ~ ~ Stte: ~ Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intemdttent ounty: s ~r,..~ .z, ~ e.g. Quad Name:
H219or nialffx30 2~Z

A. Geomo hoi subtotal = ~ -5 -J
1'. Continuous bed and bank Absetrt
0 Weak
1 Moderate
2 Strong
~
2. Sin 0 ~ 2 3
3. In-cannel structure: riffle- I ence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorb 0 1 3 _
5. Active/relic flood Isin 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 +'~~; 2 3
7. Braided channel f` 1 ~. 2 3
e. Recent alluvial 1 2 3
9' Natural levees r 1 2 3
10. Headcuts . 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural vane or drain ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on gxistlna
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No~
CC//
Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see dfscCU/salons in manual
in..~._•_~ ~ ) ~
V. f7 414 vu4waw -
14. Groundwaterflow/discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since Hain, g
Water inchannel -- d or rowi season 0 /~7
~..:/ 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 ~ 0.6 0
17. Sediment on lams or debris 0 1 1.5
1 S. O is debris Nrres or ilea rack lines) 0 ~7 1 1.5
1 S. H ric soils redoxi hic features) present? No = 0 Yes 1.

20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 Rooted lards in channel 3 1 0
22. Cra sh 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobentho8 (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al e; ri hyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacderta/fu s. 0 1 1.5
29 Wefland plards in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW - 0.7 , OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
"Items 20 and 21 focus On me presence or up~anc ptanrs, i~em [tf ~a:weus wi uro Fwww~w w oy.,a.w. r...o........ ~.....•--•
Sketch:
Notes: (use back skle of this fomt for additkxial notes.)
M , A d„~
- ~6(//t~~ ,... Q~b h .oJ~+,Y// ~"' '] -~ ° 1611 f fiaS : ~+c ,..

0 7 ~ 7
Appendix F
HEC-RAS Analysis

BIG CEDAR CREEK
Project Start
Project End

Reach River Sta Profile Existing Cond
W.S. Elev
ft Proposed Cond
W.S. Elev
ft Rise in
WSEL
ft
REACH 1 48 100 YR 249.27 249.27 0
REACH 1 47 100 YR 248.78 248.78 0
REACH 1 46 100 YR 247.54 247.54 0
REACH 1 45 100 YR 246.31 246.04 -0.27
REACH 1 44 100 YR 243.59 243.3 -0.29
REACH 1 43 100 YR 243.3 242.61 -0.69
REACH 1.5 43 100 YR 243.2 242.48 -0.72
REACH 1.5 42 100 YR 242.44 242.38 -0.06
REACH 1.5 41 100 YR 241.41 241.53 0.12
REACH 1.5 40 100 YR 240 240.99 0.99
REACH 1.5 39 100 YR 238.79 239.79 1
REACH 1.5 38 100 YR 238.68 239.18 0.5
REACH 1.5 37 100 YR 237.88 238.65 0.77
REACH 1.5 36 100 YR 237.21 238.15 0.94
REACH 1.5 35 100 YR 237.03 237.47 0.44
REACH 1.5 34 100 YR 236 236.24 0.24
REACH 1.5 33 100 YR 234.45 235.57 1.12
REACH 1.5 32 100 YR 234.14 234.83 0.69
REACH 1.5 31 100 YR 232.73 233.31 0.58
REACH 1.5 30 100 YR 232.18 232.39 0.21
REACH 1.5 29 100 YR 231.15 231.38 0.23
REACH 1.5 28 100 YR 230.98 230.92 -0.06
REACH 1.5 27 100 YR 229.85 230.09 0.24
REACH 1.5 26 100 YR 229.56 229.47 -0.09
REACH 1.5 25 100 YR 229.34 229.35 0.01
REACH 1.5 24 100 YR 229.25 229.31 0.06
REACH 1.5 23 100 YR 229.12 229.14 0.02
REACH 1.5 22 100 YR 229.11 229.12 0.01
REACH 1.5 21 100 YR 229.1 229.11 0.01
REACH 1.5 20 100 YR 229.1 229.11 0.01
REACH 1.5 19 100 YR 229.1 229.1 0
REACH 1.5 18 100 YR 229.1 229.1 0
REACH 1.5 17 100 YR 229.1 229.1 0
REACH 1.5 16 100 YR 229.09 229.09 0
REACH 1.5 15 100 YR 229.09 229.09 0
REACH 1.5 14 100 YR 229.09 229.09 0
REACH 1.5 13.5 0
REACH 1.5 13 100 YR 229.01 229.01 0
REACH 1.5 12 100 YR 229.01 229.01 0
REACH 1.5 11 100 YR 229.01 229.01 0
REACH 1.5 10 100 YR 229 229 0
REACH 1.5 9 100 YR 229 229 0
REACH 1.5 8 100 YR 229.01 229.01 0
REACH2 8 100 YR 229.01 229.01 0
REACH2 7 100 YR 229 229 0
REACH2 6 100 YR 229 229 0
REACH2 5 100 YR 229 229 0
REACH2 4 100 YR 229 229 0
REACH2 3 100 YR 229 229 0
REACH2 2 100 YR 229 229 0
REACH2 1 100 YR 229 229 0

i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
UT1
Reach
REACH 1
Project Start REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
Project End REACH 1
REACH 1
River Sta Profile
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
100 YR
Existing Cond
W.S. Elev
(ft)
281.33
280.46
279.32
275.82
273.46
270.92
267.07
261.84
252.47
242.79
231.48
229.03
229
229.01
229.01
Proposed Cond
W.S. Elev
(ft)
281.33
280.46
277.22
276.17
274.45
272.18
267.73
261.12
252.68
242.74
231.11
229.03
229
229.01
229.01

UT2
Reach
REACH 1
Project Start REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
REACH 1
Project End REACH 1

River Sta Profile Existing Cond
W.S. Elev
(ft) Proposed Cond
W.S. Elev
ft) Rise in
WSEL
(ft)
6 100 YR 254.72 254.72 0
5 100 YR 251.76 251.76 0
4 100 YR 250.21 250.23 0.02
3 100 YR 248.2 248.17 -0.03
2 100 YR 246.52 246.6 0.08
1 100 YR 244.48 244.66 0.18