20071890 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20071108

Blockhouse Creek Restoration Plan
Polk County, North Carolina
EEP Project No ~ D06027 -A
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.mbake~°corp.com
Report Prepared and Submitted by Baker Engineering NY, Inc.

Micky Clemmons Andrew Bick, PE
Project Manager Principal in Charge

BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE i 10/04/07

EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY___
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. (Baker) proposes to restore 4,8301inear feet (LF), enhance 972 LF, and preserve
393 LF of stream along Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries, approximately three miles east of Tryon, in Polk
County, North Carolina.
In 1985, the property was donated to the Foothills Equestrian Nature Center (FENCE), which operates the site
as a center for public environmental education, outdoor recreation and equestrian activities. Prior to 1985, the
land was used for agriculture, buffers and streams were impacted by channelization and by the removal of
riparian vegetation. Construction of Interstate 26 required that a long section of Blockhouse Creek be placed
into a culvert. Construction of equestrian facilities, such as the steeplechase course and access roads, has
required the installation of bridged and culverted stream crossings that have been detrimental to stream
stability.
Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries are low gradient, gravel bed streams that support anon-game, cool to
warm water fish assemblage. Sections of Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries are deeply incised due to past
channelization and improper culvert installations. Other sections are overly-sinuous due to aggradation and
subsequent bank erosion resulting from the stream's inability to transport its heavy sediment load. In-channel
habitat is primarily composed of woody debris.
The goals for the restoration project are as follows:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions on Blockhouse Creek.
• :Restore hydrologic connections between creek and floodplain.
• Improve the water quality of Blockhouse Creek.
• 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 constructing a stable channel or
enhancing the existing channel and providing access to the floodplain.
• Improve water quality by establishing vegetated buffers for nutrient removal from runoff and by
stabilizing stream banks to reduce bank erosion and subsequent sedimentation.
• Improve in-stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with coarser riffles and deeper pools,
reducing bank erosion, and providing large woody debris for habitat.
• 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.
Table ES.1
Blockhouse Creek Restoration Overview
Project ~'cature ~ i~;xisting l~esigu ~sl~t-aF sa~S3
Condition Cundrtion
Blockhouse Creek 4,075 LF Restoration and Enhancement
UT1 540 LF 569 LF Restoration
UT2 1,224 LF 1,147 LF Restoration
UT3 430 LF 430 LF Preservation
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE ii 10/04/07

Table of Contents
1.0 Project site Identification and Location ......................................... ........................................ l-1
1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................... ............................................1-1
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations .. ............................................ l-1
2.0 Watershed Characterization ........................................................... ........................................2-1
2.1 Watershed Delineation ........................................................................... .............................................2-1
2.2 Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality ......................................... .............................................2-1
2.3 Geology and Soils .................................................................................. .............................................2-1
2.4 Historic Land Use and Development Trends ......................................... .............................................2-5
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species ............................................................. .............................................2-5
2.5.1 Federally Listed Endangered Species .............................................. .............................................2-6
2.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. .............................................2-8
2.7 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites ........................................... .............................................2-9
2.8 Potential Constraints ............................................................................... .............................................2-9
2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundary .................................................. .............................................2-9
2.8.2 Site Access ....................................................................................... .............................................2-9
.2.8.3 Utilities ............................................................................................. .............................................2-9
2.8.4 Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplain Characterization ...............................................................2-10
3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions) .................................. .........................................3-1
3,1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification ..... ..............................................3-1
3.1.1 Reach 1 of Blockhouse Creek -Proposed Sta. 0+00 to 10+70 ....... ...................................._.........3-1
3.1.2 Reach 2 of Blockhouse Creek -Proposed Sta. 10+70 to 14+14 ..... ..............................................3-3
3.1.3 Reach 3 of Blockhouse Creek -Proposed Sta. 14+34 to 25+44 ..... ..............................................3-4
3.1.4 Reach 4 of Blockhouse Creek -Proposed Sta. 28+37 to 46+17 ..... ..............................................3-4
3.1.5 Unnamed Tributary 1 (UT 1) .......................................................... ..............................................3-5
3.1.6 Unnamed Tributary 2 (UT 2) .......................................................... ..............................................3-5
3.1.7 Unnamed Tributary 3 (UT 3) .......................................................... ..............................................3-6
3.2 Channel Stability Assessment ............................................................... ..............................................3-7
3.3 Bankfull Verification ............................................................................. ..............................................3-8
3.3.1 Conclusions for Design Bankfull Discharge ................................... ..............................................3-9
3.4 Reference Indicators .............................................................................. ............................................3-10
3.5 Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions ..................................................... ............................................3-11
3.5.1 Piedmont/Low Mountain Bottomland Forest ..............................................................................3-11
4.0 Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions) ............................... ..........................................4-1
4.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ........................................................................ ...............................................4-1
4.2 Hydrologic Characterization ................................................................ ...............................................4-1
4.3 Soil Characterization ........................ ......... .................... ......... ..... .... ......... ......... ..................4-2

BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE iii 10/04/07

4.4 Plant Community Characterization .....................................................................................................4-2
4.4.1 Scrub-Shrub Wetlands .................................................. ................................................................4-2
4.5 Proposed Wetland Impacts and Justification ....................... ................................................................4-3
5.0 Project Site Restoration Plan .....................................:.. ..........................................................5-1
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ........................... ................................................................5-1
5.2 Design Approach by Reach ................................................. ..................................................,.............5-1
5.3 Summary of Design Approaches for Stream Restoration ... ................................................................5-3
5.4 Design Parameters ............................................................... ................................................................5-4
5.5 Sediment Transport ............................................................. ................................................................5-S
5.5.1 Methodology ................................................................. ................................................................5-9
5.5.2 Sediment Transport Analysis and Discussion ............... ........_..,....................................................5-9
5.6 In-Stream Structures ............................................................ ..............................................................5-10

g ..................................................................
5.7 Flood modelin ............_ ...............5-12
...................................
S.8 Natural Plant Community Restoration ............................... ...............................................................5-12
5.8.1 Stream Buffer Vegetation ............................................ ...............................................................5-12
5.8.2 On-site Invasive Species Management ........................ ...............................................................5-14
6.0 Performance Criteria ................................................... ......................................................... 6-15
6.1 Stream Monitoring ................................................,............ ...............................................................6-15
6.1::,:1 Bankfull Events ............................................................ ...............................................................6-15
6.1.2 Cross Sections .............................................................. ...............................................................6-15
6.1.3 Longitudinal Profile ..................................................... ...............................................................6-15
6.1.4 Bed Material Analyses ................................................. ...............................................................6-16
6.1.5 Photo Reference Sites ........................................ ......,. ...............................................................6-16
6.2 Vegetation Monitoring .................................. ................... ...............................................................6-16
6.3 Maintenance Issues ............................................................. ...............................................................6-17
6.4 Schedule/ Reporting ........................................................... ...............................................................6-17
7.0 References .................................................................................................................................7-1
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE iv 06/08/07

List of Tables
Table ES.1 Blockhouse Creek Restoration Overview
Table 2.1 Project Soil Series Descriptions and Characteristics
Table 2.2 Blockhouse Creek Watershed Land Use
Table 2.3 Species Of Federal and State Status in Polk County
Table 3.1 Blockhouse Creek and Tributary Reach Descriptions
Table 3.2 Existing Representative Geomorphic Data. for Blockhouse Creek & Restoration Tributaries
Table 3.3 Design Discharge Summary for Blockhouse Creek and Tributaries.
.Table 3.4 Design Ratios and Guidelines
Table 41 Site Precipitation Summary
..Table 5.1 Proposed Stream Type and Rationale
Table 5.2a Proposed Design Parameters and Geomorphic Characteristics
Table 5.2b Design Parameters and Proposed Geomorphic Characteristics (UT 1 and UT 2)
Table 5.3 Proposed In-stream Structure Types and Locations
Table S.4 Proposed Bare-Root and Live Stake Species
Table. 5.5 Riparian Buffer_Seed Mix.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE v 10/04/07

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Project Location Map
Figure 1.2 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2.1 Watershed Basin Map
Figure 2.2 Project Soil Types
Figure 2.3 FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 3.1 Project Reaches and Surveyed Cross-Section Locations
.Figure 3.2 HEC-RAS Cross-section and Water Surface Elevation Plot for Design Discharge
Figure 5.1 Sediment Rating Curve

BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE vi 10/04/07

List of Appendices
Appendix A Regulatory Agency Correspondence
A d' B EDR Transaction Screen Ma Report
Ppen ix p
Appendix C Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix D Wetland Delineation Data Forms
Appendix E Photo Log -Existing Conditions
Appendix F Big Branch Reference Reach (NCDOT.Database)
Appendix G Existing Conditions Data
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE vii 10/04/07

1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1.1 Project Location
Baker proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve 6,195 linear feet (LF) of stream on Blockhouse Creek and
three unnamed tributaries. The Blockhouse Creek restoration site is located on the Foothills Equestrian
Nature Center (FENCE) property approximately three miles east of Tryon, in Polk County, North Carolina
(Figure 1.1). Directions to the site and latitude and longitude coordinates are as follows:
• Take Interstate 26, Exit 1 in South Carolina toward Landrum on SC-14.
• Go 0.4 miles and take a right on High Farm Road.
• Go 0.6 miles and take a right on E Prince Road.
• Go 0.5 miles, cross the state line into N.C., take a left on NC-1501 Hunting Country Road.___
• Go 0.3 miles to the Foothills Equestrian Nature Center.
• Take a left on Mane Gate Road just before passing under I-26 to access Blockhouse Creek Reaches 1,
2, and 3 and UT 1.
• Take a right at the FENCE main entrance off of NC .1501 just beyond the I-26 overpass to access
Blockhouse Creek Reach 4, UT 2, and UT 3.
• Central site coordinates are 35.1986° N, 82.1751 ° W
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The Blockhouse Creek project site lies in the Broad River Basin, within North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-08-06 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit
-03050105-150020. Figure 1.2 provides a topographic view of the watershed drainage area for Blockhouse
Creek.
Blockhouse Creek is a "blue-line" stream, as shown on the USGS topographic quadrangle for the site, and is
considered to be perennial, based on field evaluations using NCDWQ stream assessment protocols. The total
current length of Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries within the proposed conservation easement is 6,205
linear feet. The three tributaries were all identified as perennial during initial project scoping, although UT2
and UT3 have. little or no flow during extreme drought conditions such as observed during the. summer of
2007.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 1-1 10/04/07

-- -
`°~ _ i ,
I
' /6 ~ $

~~
> ~
;i

•

~i
'
.
r
~.
,
4
`,
._
~._

r
/1 - -
9
~.
V ors ` ~

_
a ~
_,

,
.>

~

__
~ L
I

L`
I , i .- ~.LII~`

,
z

u
_. .
h_t i i

__
~
~,_ .,
i

..
.,

L' 4

i
~_1
r
y
r 9 F~
;~,4 ~ ~~
I ~h

i
~
<
0
<
~'
-

l

-

y

~ "a

e

~t.
-,

~
b
~,

~_ _ ~

_ -.-!
1
~ i ~ . _,

\l
I
I

~
~

d

~,
~~ ~ i
~. P
-
iI 7

~
i

.i
r~
i

O'

i

i
,
~.
s_
~
~'

~ _
e
s

~'° - - ~ s -
,v
~,~.
a i

s°~
,~'
., I
..

~~'

~ 1

i
~
~ []F, ~
i3
l~ ~ ~ ~

.,-
~ ~ ~

~
- ~~P ~ ~ ~

,.:
~.
.~~ect~ S ~~:e
74~ ,~
;;, `_
~~ ~
~ - ,~
'

Jots' .. ~
~~~ /
„~
,,:~-
' ~i
~ - - ~_
_ ;
r
~,
~ r
~ i
5

_ _

~,

~- .ji
1
r i ~`

- s`

I
-

,~ ~ ,. i

I
i
,.ea ,an ...
°
~~~ ..aa~~~ _~o ,.~E~ ,.a,r~.,,. ~ r~
SOUTH CAROLINA ~ . ~~~.

:._...~
e Counties
~
..._
'Municipal boundaries
Secondary Roads
_ ~-
N
0 2 4 Figure 1.1 Project Location Map
Polk County, NC Miles.
~ Blockhouse Creek
' Restoration Project

BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 1-2 10/04/07

2.0 WATERSHED_CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Watershed Delineation
The Blockhouse Creek watershed straddles the North Carolina-South Carolina state line, near the western
edge of the Broad River Basin, primarily in Polk County, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. The drainage area for
Blockhouse Creek is 2.4 square miles at the downstream project_limit; UT1 contributes 211.2 acres, UT2
contributes 57.6 acres, and UT3 contributes 38.4 acres.
2.2 Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality
The NCDWQ designates classifications for surface 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 a set of water quality standards to protect those uses. All surface
waters in North Carolina must at least meet the standards for Class C (fishable/swimmable) waters. The other
primary classifications provide additional levels of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B)
and drinking water_supplies (WS). _Class W.S.waters_are protected_for Class C uses as well as a source of
potable water.
Blockhouse Creek flows into Wolfe Creek less than 3,000 feet downstream of the lower project limits. Wolfe
.Creek is listed as Class "C" [DWQ Index No. 9-55-1-14] water, indicating that Blockhouse Creek and its
.tributaries are considered supporting of aquatic life and secondary recreational uses. In addition to these
.primary classifications, supplemental. classfications_are sometimes assigned to water bodies. to protect. special
uses or values.
According to the EEP Basinwide Plan for the Broad River Basin, the water quality of Blockhouse Creek
.could be improved through the use of agricultural best-management practices (BMPs). These BMPs reduce
.erosion and sedimentation, and include activities such as the re-establishment of riparian buffers and stream
bank stabilization practices. BMPs will also act to regulate nutrient loads that currently enter Blockhouse
Creek and its tributaries from. FENCE and other properties supporting livestock or agriculture upstream of the
project area.
2.3 Geology and Soils
The Blockhouse Creek project area lies just within in the southwestern portion of the Inner Piedmont belt
within the Piedmont physiographic province in western North Carolina. The Piedmont physiographic
province is characterized by gently rolling hills and ridges that reach approximately 1,500 feet above sea level
as it meets the Blue Ridge province. The equestrian center itself is located in a valley setting with open
meadows, woodland and marsh. According to the 1985 North Carolina Geological Survey Map and a 1
degree by 2 degree geologic map of the Knoxville Quadrangle prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey
(Hadley, and Nelson, 1971, Map I-654), the project site is underlain by Ordovician-age metamorphic rock
units of Biotite Gneiss and schist that were produced during the beginning of the mountain building process
after a continental collision took place. This rock unit is described as inequigranular, foliated rock composed
dominantly of potassic-feldspars, garnet, mica schists, biotite, talc-silicates, and plagioclase megacrysts of
quartz. In the western portion of the project area, the Biotite Gneiss unit gives way to a Mica Schist unit that
is described as consisting of garnet, with layers. of quartz schist, micaeous quartzite, talc-silicate rock, biotite..
-gneiss, amphibolite, and phyllite.
Soils at the site were determined using USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey
data for Polk County, along with preliminary on-site evaluations to determine any hydric soil areas (Figure
2.2). There are two general soil types found within the project boundaries, the Chewacla series and the
Pacolet series (Table 2.1).
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 2-1 10/04/07

The predominant soil series within the floodplain area of the site is mapped as Chewacla. Chewacla loam is
found along the floodplain areas of Blockhouse Creek and the downstream end of its tributaries. Its parent
material consists of loamy alluvium deposits derived from igneous and metamorphic rock. The Chewlaca soil
series is on the hydrologic group C list for Polk County and although not hydric, does contain hydric
inclusions. Upland areas on the tributary valleys are mapped as the Pacolet series, a well drained, eroded
sandy clay loam. Pacolet soils are formed from saprolite residuum left by granite and gneiss and/or schist
material. While they have a loamy surface, Pacolet fine subsoils have a more clayey consistency. The Pacolet
Fine soil series is listed under hydrologic group B for Polk County.
Site observations did not indicate the presence of shallow bedrock that would limit performing the work
described in this restoration plan.
Table 2.1 Project Soil Series Descriptions and Characteristics
SOII Serl@S Chewacla Fine-loamy Pacolet Fine-sandy
----Taxonomic Subgroup mixed, active, thermic kaolinitic, thermic Typic
Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Kanhapludults
Location 0-2% Slope. Channel, 8-15% Slope. Upland
wetland and floodplain. areas on valley
Max Depth (in.)/ Drainage Class 72 in. 72 in.
Very deep, somewhat Very deep, well drained.
poorly drained
Organic Matter Content (surface layer) ~ 2% ~1%
Depth to Root Restrictive Layer (in.) > 60 >60
Permeability Moderate; water Moderate; water
movement in the most movement in the most
restrictive layer restrictive layer
moderately high. moderately high.
Seasonal High Water Table (ft.) 0.5 to 1.5 November to Below 6 ft. Water'
April; high water availability to 5 ft. is
availability to 5 tt. moderate.
remainder of year
Flooding Frequency Occasional Occasional
Clay on Surface 22.5 27.5
Erosion Factor K 0.28 0.24
Erosion Factor T 5 5
Notes:
NRCS USDA Soil Data Mart (http°//soildataart nres usda qav/Survey.aspx?County=NC149}

NRCS, USDA. Official Soil Series
Descriptions
http://websoilsurve .nres.usda.gov/ap MlebSoilSurvey.aspx)
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 2-2 10/04/07

._~.. _ ._ _..~m _ _ ___ _
_ 111 ~ r t:
USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit ~ _,
~ ~;;
03050101
r :
ii c
>~ ~
03050102 ~;., `~ _~ .~ ~z<
r
t,,,:,,:
06010106 ~.k. y~ ' ~, e
x
"t.
03050105 ~ ~ Y~°z.
4
.° r~~ ~
g'
;: IFs - 6' -
1 '~, .. r
~'t
{;
z..
- '~4..
fi. -
'~~,, ~
~ C.. ~~
't..._
•~~ s
,,.ki:, ~
'o w
-,n
,~' ~``E
A ^~ y.,.x
e. rY
. $a L ~~
~~~ =r, ~`
"~ -
..9 r
~yY b;~.
r k;
` d i
u .. _
g ~ " ~.'
.P1
,, ~ -~.. ~
Project Site
NCDWQ Sub-Basin
L....t Counties
~:
'"' Figure2.'I Watershed Basin Map....
0 5 1Q '
Polk County, NC r Miles Blockhouse Creek
Restoration Project
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 2-3 10/04/07

l ~ +:

r,~ 1=r
r
:~ -, ~ .,
. ,
_
, I
44
i~" 'S
~,~;`,
I~
'.:
~
.
CLI E Ft'

f.ll-- ~ I ~.~_ r 7~ ~ ,_.~
{ I .~
F'I.f -. F
F•"I F'
111
l~', ~~F F~`:`"~ ~yr ~ '.
I` ,,,
Ilya li~~
~ ~e~ ~
f~ri` ~~,~~ ~ ~
E,"
I!;,, t.

,` '
H_EH,i, -

r ~. -
rC ~.I, ,, i

x
'<,
Legend
Project Reach 'HaE,HayesNllesandyloam,l5-25%slope
Project Watershed H aF, H ayestille sandy loam, 25 ~0% slope
SOlls HeD, Hivtassee sandylaam, 10-15%slope
AcB, Appling and Ceal sandy looms, 2-6% slope ', ',HID 2, H iutassee clay loam , 6-15% slope, eroded
BrD, Brevard fine sandy loam, 10-15%slope ~ HuuC2, Hirrmssee clay loam, 8-15%slopes, eroded
', BuE, Breuard-Evard complex,15-25% slope MsC3, Musella day loam, 6-10% slope, severely eroded
CeB2, Cecil sandy clay loam, 2-8% slope, eroded PaC2, Pacolet sandy clay loam, 8-15% slope, eroded
', CeC3, Cecil clay loam, 6-10% slope, severely eroded PaC2, Paeolet sandy clay loam, 8-15%slopes, eroded
ChA, Cheu~cla loam , 0-2% slope, occasionally flooded PaD2, Pacalet sandy clay loam, 15-25% slope, eroded
CIB2, Cecil sandy loam, 2-6% slope, eroded ~ PbC2, Pamlet-Bethlehem complex, 8-15% slope, eroded
' CID2, Cecil sandy Ioam,10-15% slope, eroded ' PbD2, Pacolet-Bethlehem complex, 15-2596 slope, eroded
DoB, Dogue-Roanoke complex, 0-6% slope, rarely flooded PcE2, Pacolet sandy loam, 15-25%slope, eroded
', DsD 2, Davidson sandy clay loam ,10-15% slope, eroded RnE ,Rion sandy1oam , 25-45% slope
EVF, Evard-Brevard association, steep ''RtE,Rion~liffsidecomplex,25-45%slopes, rrerystony
', HaD, Hayesville sandy loam , 6-15% dope Water

-i
3 ~ Polk Caunry, NC and ~I
Figure 2.2 Project Soil Type
;~` ~,,,~
` Greenville County , SC ,,
Blockhouse Creek
~„u,~,
• 2002 SSURGG soils Restoration Project
_-
,._
~~
' 0 1,000 2 ,000 3 ,000
N,rfi .,r,;n,,~ ~
~
~
_- ~;i:

BAYER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 2-4 10/04/07

2.4 Historic Land Use and Development Trends
The Blockhouse Creek Restoration Project streams drain a watershed that is predominately forest land with a
significant percentage of land in pasture or hay production and a smaller percentage in residential
development (Table 2.2). The FENCE property surrounding the project area is predominately grassland with
forested areas. The Interstate 26 corridor divides the project area. Potential for land use change in the area
adjacent to the conservation easement is low.
Prior to the establishment of an equestrian center, the FENCE property was in agriculture. At that time
buffers were removed and streams were channelized, which was a typical practice. Development in the
watershed has induced changes to Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries. Construction of equestrian facilities,
such as the steeplechase course and roads, has required the installation of bridged and culverted stream
crossings that have been detrimental to stream stability. Culvert and bridge installations impact the flow
pattern and velocity of streams, result in changes to the cross-sectional area, and often facilitate deepening of
the channel resulting in lost access to the adjacent floodplain. Construction of Interstate 26 required that a
long section of Blockhouse Creek be put into a culvert.
The upper Blockhouse Creek watershed near the town of Tryon is currently seeing increased pressure from
development and some areas will likely shift from forest and agricultural land uses to residential in the next
decades. Land use changes in the upper watershed should not be as detrimental to Blockhouse Creek along
the FENCE property as might be expected. This is due to a nine acre in-line farm pond that Blockhouse Creek
passes through approximately 4,500 feet upstream of the upper project limits. This pond will trap the
majority. of increased sediment and pollutant runoff while detaining storm flows passing through the system.
Table 2.2 Blockhouse Creek Watershed Land Use
_, __,~ ___ r,_ ~ . _ _~ ~~ _.._. __ ~
La~~r~ i~sc Catt~~„f~l e~~' a.re ~ ; ,~~~~~>j ~

Light Commercial 8.50
._~..k
Percent Area
- -
1%
Rural Residential 87.71 9%
Transportation 10.74 1
Forest Land 653.50 63%
Woodland/Grasses 35.01 3%
Crop Land (Row-Contour) 51...12 5%
Pastureland 168.74 16%
Meadow 10.52 1
Water 9.40 1
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining primarily due to loss of habitat associated with natural
causes and the encroachment of humans. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) and United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) compile a list of recognized rare species that receive state or
federal protection, respectively. Three federally listed species are known to exist within Polk County: the
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf, Hexastylis naniflora; Small Whorled Pogonia, Isotria medeoloides; and White.
Irisette, SisyYinchium dichotomztm (USFWS and NCNHP, 2006; 2007).
....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
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 2-5 10/04/07

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 NHP list 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.
Table 2.3 Species with Federal and State threatened or endangered Status found in Polk County. Included are
characteristics and habitat requirements along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts.
Family Scientific Name Common Federal State Habitat Present /Biological Conclusion
Name Status Status
Vascular Plants
Aristolochiaceae Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-tlowered T T Yes/No Effect
Heartleaf
Orchidaceae lsoh^ia mecleoloides Small whorled T N/A No/No Effect
pogonia
Iridaceae Sisyri~lchium White h•isette E E No/No Effect
clichotomum
Notes:
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or fauna is detei7nined to
be in jeopardy.
T Threatened
http°/lwww.fws.~ov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html and http:/!! 49.168.1.196/nhp/county html
A pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted on August 2, 2006 for species listed in Table 2.3. No
federal protected species were observed in or adjacent to the project area during the field survey. A search of
the NHP database on July 28, 2006 and again on March 26, 2007, indicated there are no known populations of
these species within five miles of the project area.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has been contacted and has expressed no
concerns regarding federally protected species on the project site. Baker Engineering will consider the effects
of construction activities and plan to avoid potential direct and indirect impacts during the project. A copy of
the WRC letter is included in Appendix A.
The USFWS was also notified of the project and Baker's finding of "No Effect" for the three federally listed
species in Polk County on August 4, 2006. To date, no letter of response has been received. We assume "no
response" means that they also do not have any concerns regarding this project potentially impacting these
species.
2.5.1 Federally Listed Endangered Species _
2.51.1 Vascular Plants
Hexastylis naniflora (Dwarf-flowered Heartlea~
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is aloes-growing, spicy-smelling, evergreen perennial herb. Its leaves
are heart-shaped, alternate, leathery, untoothed, and 1.6 to 2.4 inches wide. Each leaf is
supported by a long, thin stalk, which rises directly from the subsurface rhizome. This species
has the smallest flowers of any North American plant in the genus Hexastylis. The solitary
flowers are fleshy and firm, and often are found under forest litter and leaves, near the base of the
.BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC._ ___ PAGE 2-6 10/04/07

leafstalks. Every year, each rhizome section produces one leaf, one flower, and a leaf scale. The
flowers are jug-shaped, less than 0.4 inches long, and have a narrow sepal tube, ranging in color
from brown to greenish or purple. Flowering occurs from mid-March to early June; fruiting
begins in late May (USFWS, 1992).
This plant grows along bluffs and north-facing slopes, boggy areas along streams, and adjacent
hillsides and ravines in rich deciduous forests. It is usually associated with mountain laurel
(Kalmia latifolia) or pawpaw (Asimina triloba) and requires acidic, sandy loam soils. In fact, the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf flourishes in only a small number of soil types which include Pacolet,
Madison, or Musella soils. Provided the soil type is suitable, this plant can survive in either dry or
moderately moist habitat.
Found in the upper piedmont regions of South Carolina and North Carolina, this species has 24
known populations in an eight-county area within the piedmont province. The study site does
.have potential habitat along the existing stream corridor. Pacolet series soils are located in the
project area, which is an important factor for this species to grow and survive. A search of the
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on July 28, 2006, indicated no
occurrences of this species in the project area. Afield survey for individual plants was conducted
on August 2, 2006 throughout the project area and_none were identified._It_is_concluded that the
.project will not impact this endangered species.
.Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A field survey for this plant was conducted on August 2, 2006 and none were identified. A search
of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on July 28, 2006 and March
26, 2007, indicated no occurrences of this species in the project area. It is concluded that the
project will not impact this endangered species.
It should be noted that as a result of this project habitat may be improved for this species and the
habitat would be protected inside the easement. If state or federal authorities were interested in
establishing a new population of this species at this site, we believe that the landowner would also
have a similar interest. Baker would welcome this interest and work with all parties to facilitate
this range extension.
Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia)
Small whorled pogonia is a small perennial member of the Orchidaceae family. These plants
arise from long slender roots with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or six light green
leaves. The single flower is approximately one inch long, with yellowish-green to white petals
and three longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring from mid-May to mid-June.
Populations of this plant are reported to have extended periods of dormancy and bloom
sporadically. This small spring ephemeral orchid is not observable outside of the growing season.
.When not in flower, small whorled pogonia can resemble young plants of Indian cucumber-root
(Medeola virginiana). However, the hollow stout stem of Isotria will separate it from the genus
Medeola, which has a solid, more slender stem (USFWS 2001).
Small whorled pogonia may occur in young as well as maturing forests and historically at
elevations ranging from 2000 to 4000 feet. It also grows in rich, mesic woods in association with
white pine (Pines strobes) and rhododendron (Rhododendf°on spp,) with dense thickets of New
York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis).
Habitat for this species is not available on the site. Most of the project area has been disturbed
........and does not meet the historic elevation requirements. A search of the NHP database of rare
...........species and unique habitats indicated no occurrence of this species in the. project area._ Therefore,
no impacts to this species are anticipated during project construction.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 2-7 10/04/07

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for this species is not available on the site. Most of the project area has been disturbed
and does not meet the historic elevation requirements. A search of the NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats, conducted on July 28, 2006 and March 26, 2007, indicates no
occurrences of this species in the project area. Therefore, no impacts to this species. are
anticipated during the project construction.
SisyYinchium dichotomum (White Irisette)
White irisette is a perennial herb with branching stems 4 to 8 inches tall. Leaves at the base of
the plant are pale to bluish green and grow to one-third to one-half the height of the plant. The
flowers are tiny, occurring in clusters of four to six at the tops of winged stems. Flowering occurs
from late May to July. The fruit is round containing three to six black seeds.
White irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of North and South Carolina. It is currently
known from four populations in North Carolina and one in South Carolina. North Carolina's
extant populations are in the following counties: Polk (six populations), Henderson (one
population), and Rutherford (one population). The Greenville County, South Carolina, site is
contiguous with one of the Polk County, North Carolina, sites. This species is apparently
endemic to a confined narrow area, limited in range to the Carolinas bounded by White Oak
Mountain, Sugarloaf Mountain, Chimney Rock, and Melrose Mountain. Two of the remaining
populations are within highway rights of way, and a third is inside a commercial. recreation area
(USFWS, 1995).
White irisette occurs on rich, basic soils probably weathered from amphibolite. It grows in
clearings and the edges of upland woods, where the canopy is thin, and often where down-slope
runoff has removed much of the deep litter layer ordinarily present on these sites. The irisette is
dependent on some form of disturbance to maintain the open quality of its habitat. Currently,
artificial disturbances such as power line and right of way maintenance, when they do not involve
herbicides or occur during the reproductive cycle of this species, are providing openings that may
have been provided by native grazing animals and periodic, naturally-occurring fires (USFWS,
1995).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for this species is not available in the project area. The site exists in a disturbed
bottomland area with moderately acidic soils that are prone to flooding. A search of the NHP
database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on July 28, 2006 and March 26, 2007,
shows no occurrences of this species in the project area. It is concluded that the project will not
impact this endangered species.
2.6 Cultural Resources
On August 1, 2006, a letter was also sent to both the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians' Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), requesting their
review and comments on the potential for cultural resources in the vicinity of the Blockhouse Creek
restoration site. Upon request by the SHPO to complete an archeological survey, Baker Engineering secured
the services of Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. in November, 2006. No previously recorded
archaeological resources were recorded within 1.6 krn of the Blockhouse Creek project area. In the project
area, one isolated find, 31PL56, was recovered. The find, a single milky quartz flake, was recovered from a
shovel test on the east bank of Blockhouse Creek in the western portion of the corridor, about 60 meters from
Interstate 26. Additional shovel tests were excavated within the immediate vicinity of the positive shovel test,
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 2-8 10/04/07

but no other artifacts were located. Based on the presence of the single milky quartz flake, this site is not
considered to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Upon completion of the study by Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. it was determined no
significant archeological or architectural resources were located within the project boundaries. On December
1, 2006, the archaeological survey report was submitted to the SHPO and THPO for review. On January 12,
2007, Baker Engineering NY received a letter from the SHPO concurring with findings from the
archaeological survey that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project. The THPO submitted a concurrence letter on January 24, .2007. A copy of the SHPO and. THPO
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 site reviews included Superfund (National Priorities List, NPL), hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal facilities, suspect state hazardous waste, solid waste or landfill facilities; and leaking
underground storage tanks. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Information System (CERCLIS) was also searched for potential sites. During field data collection, there
was no evidence of such sites in the proposed project vicinity, and conversations with landowners did not
reveal any further knowledge of hazardous environmental sites in the area. No sites of environmental concern
were identified by our review within the proposed project area. One site within a mile of the project vicinity,
Sandy Plains Texaco, has a recorded incident of a leaking underground storage tank. According to the EDR
summary, the recovery and remediation phase of incident response has been closed out by the state.
2.8 Potential Constraints
Baker Engineering assessed the Blockhouse Creek project site for potential site constraints. Infrastructure and
FENCE facilities such as culverted and bridged crossings as well as buildings and arenas present constraints
to the restoration of meander pattern and profile. Log structures will be placed in sections where adjustment
opportunities are limited to direct the thalweg and narrow low flow channels.
2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
A conservation easement will be established between FENCE and the state's Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP). EEP will retain ownership and assume maintenance responsibility
for the project after Baker completes construction and monitoring.
NC 1501 (Hunting County Road) has no designated right-of--way offset and roadsides are
maintained "from ditch to ditch", per conversation with a NCDOT official. This maintained offset
will be excluded from the conservation easement but stream channel restoration will not be
interrupted under the bridge. The Interstate 26 right-of--way boundaries are monumented by a fence
which will also serve as the boundary for the conservation easement as shown in the plan drawings.
No open channel section of Blockhouse Creek flows. across this right-of-way. and the restoration...
will be performed to the culvert inverts......
2.8.2 Site Access
The site can be accessed for construction and post-restoration monitoring. Construction accessand
staging areas are shownn the Erosionand Sediment.Control section of the. plandrawings.
2.8.3 Utilities
Baker Engineering anticipates little to no constraints from utilities at the Blockhouse Creek project
site. During initial field surveys, no gas lines or telephone lines were located in the project area.
..BAKER ENGINEERING NY INC. ____PAGE 2-9 10/04/07

The equestrian center is served by a well and septic system; no previous water or sewer lines are
.known to exist on site. There is potential for one light pole to be relocated during the project but at
this time it is not known whether the pole is in service. Baker Engineering staff will .coordinate
relocation of the pole with FENCE personnel as necessary.
2.8.4 Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplain Characterization
The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Polk County, NC, (Map Number 3701940004B)
indicates that a portion of the project is located within a regulatory floodplain. Figure 2.3 illustrates
the FEMA mapping near the site. This project will disturb less than five acres in the regulatory
floodplain, therefore no formal study is required to evaluate the flooding effects of the proposed
project.
Preliminary modeling has been performed to evaluate the restoration design approach. The results
of the modeling are discussed in Section 6. The preliminary modeling indicates that the project can
be completed with a Priority 2 design approach.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 2-10 10/04/07

-- f~
~
~.
~
~ ~;
_ ~ 's
~ ~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~~ `

+~ ° <
, ~
I I
I! Y g^p f
I
_
~
;
i ~ ~~
i
s,

---..rte
f
~t ~ ~
~

"
~~
'h

,.~~_

___-_„`~
1!
11 I
I
r
M
41

'~
~ ~~~

~••..

~~~ [

~. .~ ~
` y
. ~i
; : i

~,
... ~a. ,
,
,` +._

. ,~
- ~;
>;
a
~
~
-~. , ~
--

y
__~___ ~ ,~

~ z.~.
~~

.... ~~~

_

~

.~
' .,,
,.' ~,,,w °~ Project Reach
,~ _~u~ ~~
{ 0 1,ODD 2,OD0 3,000 Feet
g ~ ~! rM i ,ilr3 i
., ,._
{ ~~ I~ - $ -1Yr7 ~ =- i i _r sl~._
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC.
PAGE 2-11
Figure 2.3 FEMA Floodplain Nlap
Blockhouse creek
Restoration Project
__ --
9
----- a°°
10/04/07

3.0 PROJECT_SITE_STREAMS_(EXISTING CONDITIONS).........
31 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification
Baker performed a survey of the project reaches and floodplain to capture existing topography and measure
geomorphic conditions. Along with providing detailed topography, this survey included five cross-sections
on Blockhouse Creek, one cross-section on each unnamed tributary to be restored, and longitudinal profiles
for all reaches. Baker also collected substrate samples to characterize stream sediments. Figure 3.1 illustrates
the locations of the cross-section surveys on the project reaches and shows the location of each project reach.
The existing longitudinal profile is shown on the construction drawings.
The next sections of this report will qualitatively and quantitatively describe the designated project reaches:
Blockhouse Creek Reaches 1 through 4, Unnamed Tributary_1 (UT1), Unnamed Tributary 2 (UT2), .and
Unnamed Tributary 3 (UT3) (Table 3.1).
Blockhouse Creek Reach 1 enters the project area at the outlet of a corrugated metal culvert under the FENCE
steeplechase course and flows southeast through the center of the steeplechase infield for 887 LF to its
confluence with UT1. The UTl project reach also enters the project site through a culvert beneath the
steeplechase course, and flows northeast for 523 LF joining Blockhouse Creek in the center of the infield.
Reach 2 of Blockhouse Creek begins at this confluence and flows southeast through the infield for 340 LF to
a point under an existing bridge. Reach 3 begins at this point and flows southeast for 1,077 LF to the inlet of
a triple-cell box culvert under Interstate 26. At the outlet of this culvert, Reach 4 begins and flows northeast
for 1,848 LF to the eastern FENCE property boundary. The UT2 project reach begins at a culvert outlet
where the stream passes under the main entrance gravel road to the FENCE center. UT2 flows southeast for
1,240 LF to its confluence with Blockhouse Creek Reach 4. UT3 emerges from a perennial spring and flows
south for 430 LF to its confluence with Reach 4 of Blockhouse Creek near the downstream project boundary.
3.1.1 Reach 1 of Blockhouse Creek -Proposed Sta. 0+00 to 10+70
One riffle cross-section was surveyed on this reach. The bankfull elevation was determined in this
reach by field identification and surveyed. Bankfull indicators were later verified in a HEC-RAS
existing conditions model and compared to the regional curve. This reach is quite incised with a
bank height ratio of 2.8 at the surveyed cross-section. The reach appears to be achieving relative
stability by widening as evidenced by bankfull bench development. The bank height ratio
decreases further downstream along this reach, averaging 2.0. The existing water surface slope at
base flow is nearly flat for long stretches with steep drops over short sections caused by beaver
dams and debris jams. _The_substrate is gravel in some.higher velocity_arcas_but is sand for. most of
the reach.
The upstream end of this reach, beginning at the culvert outlet, is characterized by a long, wide
scour pool with banks that have failed in the past. Attempts have been made to stabilize this bank
with crib walls, old utility poles, and large riprap. Downstream of the scour pool, the stream is
steeper and narrows for a short section but is soon under the influence of beaver activity and debris
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 3-1 10/04/07

__ ___ ~,aKER ~NGiN~ER`rtG, Nv inc. ___ PaGEs-a _ 1ora4ro7

Table 3.1
Blockhouse Creek and Tribut ary Reach Descriptions w ith the existing length and drainage area.
Reach _~ y ;.~_ °i ~ '~```,~t~. ~ =I~,.°ii .,;:~; >3 Watershed Size at Keach Keach lZns;;en
s,~a~#,~t~ ~ ~!~ .i:~~~E~~t~~s ~~'~~i~ ~~~ Downstream Lnd of ,average Sinuosity Stream
si i~ y 9 ~~~,~~~~_ { ,¢~~az€E-~~ Reach (square miles} Slope ~1'ype

` ~
F~s~Js .I ~ (ft'ft) ?
Blockhouse ~ -
887-- ~ 1.56 ~ 1.63 ~ 0.0051 --1.01 E4
Creek
Reach 1
Blockhouse 340- 1.96 1.97 ` 0.0047: 1.02 E4---
Creek
Reach 2
Blocldiouse 1,077 ---1.97 2.21. -- 0.0025* 1.06 C4
Creek
Reach 3
Blockhouse 1,821 - 2.21 2.44 0.0068 1.29 E4---
Creek
Reach 4
UT 1 523 0.32 0.33 0.0137* 1.05 E4
UT 2 1,240 0.06 0.09 0.0173 1.34 ES
UT 3 430 0.05 0.06 not not not
surveyed surveyed surveyed
Total Existing 6,273
Stream Length
* This slope value does not include the Length of or the elevation loss in the mid-reach culvert
jams, a constant factor for the remainder of the reach. A footbridge spanned this reach at the time
of the survey, but has since collapsed due to storm flows and was removed. Near the downstream
end of the reach, there is a culvert crossing in a state of disrepair that will be replaced with a larger
arch culvert by a FENCE contractor at the time of restoration construction. Over the right bank of
this reach is a gravel lane providing access to the barns. Over the left bank is a grassy field.
Riparian vegetation is generally sparse and non-native, with a large population of Chinese privet;
however several willows and alders have emerged within the channel.
3.1.2 Reach 2 of Blockhouse Creek -Proposed Sta. 10+70 to 14+14
Reach 2 of Blockhouse Creek begins at the confluence with UT 1 and flows southeast through the
infield for 340 LF to a point under an existing bridge. This reach exhibits many of the same
--..geomorphic characteristics of Reach 1, but was broken out due to a significant increase in
watershed size with the addition of UT 1,
Reach 2 is relatively short and had no obvious bankfull indicators to be surveyed. The entirety of
this reach is under the backwater influence of a riprap and debris blockage near the downstream end
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 3-3 10/04/07

of the reach used to create a pool from which to pump water to control dust on nearby equestrian
rings. Incision is not as severe on this reach but fewer quality riparian vegetation species exist
within the corridor. Adjacent to the left bank of this reach is a narrow grassed strip separating the
stream from an equestrian ring. Adjacent to the right bank is a grassed field. The bridge at the
downstream end of Reach 2 will not be replaced or modified with the restoration project but neither
will it compromise the success of restoration efforts.
3.1.3 Reach 3 of Blockhouse Creek -Proposed Sta. 14+34 to 25+44
Reach 3 begins at the bridge described above and flows southeast for 1,077 LF to the inlet of a
triple-cell box culvert under Interstate 26. Lateral constraints imposed by FENCE facilities along
the upper section of the reach and a stand of mature trees along the lower section of the reach limit
restoration possibilities. The upper section of this reach flows for more than 400 feet between
equestrian rings before entering a culvert under the steeplechase course. Below the outlet of this
culvert, the reach flows for approximately 300 feet through a narrow wooded area parallel to the
main entrance to the equestrian facilities before passing under the Hunting Country Road bridge.
Downstream of this bridge, the reach flows for approximately 400 feet through a wooded area
before entering the concrete box culvert under Interstate 26.
Bankfull elevation was determined in this reach by field-identified and surveyed bankfull indicators
later verified in the HEC-RAS existing conditions model and compared to the regional curve. The
upper section of this reach is less incised than Reaches 1 and 2 with a lower bank height ratio of
2.0. This section of the reach displays riffle-pool morphology in the upper section, but the lower
section is under the influence of debris blockage at the inlet of the CMP culvert. Downstream of
this culvert, quality riparian vegetation is much more abundant, but the low slope and unstable
channel dimension exhibited have lent to aggradation and subsequent eroding banks.
The same holds true for the downstream section of this reach closer to Interstate 26. The stream
gradient becomes lower closer to the Interstate, leading to more aggradation and an over-wide
dimension as is evident from the cross-section surveyed in this section of the reach. This reach
contains a few relatively coarse gravel riffles but the substrate sediment distribution is skewed to
the finer fraction along most of the reach due to the inability of the channel. to transport the heavy
sediment load.
3.1.4 Reach 4 of Blockhouse Creek.- Proposed Sta. 28+37 to 46+17
At the outlet of the box culvert under Interstate 26, Reach 4 begins and flows northeast for 1,821
LF to the FENCE property boundary. The upper section of this reach flows for approximately 550
feet before passing under a wooden bridge. The lower section continues to the downstream project
limits. Two cross-sections were surveyed in this reach -one in the upper section and one in the
lower section. Bankfull elevation was determined in this reach by field-identified and surveyed
bankfull indicators, later verified in the HEC-RAS existing conditions model and compared to the
regional curve.
A low head dam exists on Blockhouse Creek approximately 70 feet downstream of the Interstate 26
culvert outlet. This dam has historically served to impound water for an intake pipe that supplies
water to an upland pond, however this intake is no longer in use and the dam will be removed as
part of the restoration project. Downstream of this dam is a ford type stream crossing followed by a
steep riffle lined with riprap. Below this riffle the stream becomes deeply incised reach with bank
height ratios in excess of 4.0. Mature trees exist along both banks of this section, but the root mass
of the trees is too high to prevent severe bank erosion. Adjacent to the left and right bank is a
buffer ranging from 10 to 30 feet with an open grassed field beyond the buffer.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 3-4 10/04/07

Existing riffle and pool formation in Reach 4 is primarily the result of debris blockages and ensuing
upstream aggradation and downstream scour. There are a few pools that appear to .have. formed in a
more organized fashion at the outside of bends, but these are the exception.
Downstream of the bridge, Reach 4 begins to exhibit some sinuosity, tortuous in places. Bank
height ratios become progressively lower downstream on the reach; however channel dimension
becomes more unstable with an over-wide condition leading to aggradation and subsequent severe
bank erosion. Some riffle and pool sequences are present but are generally not stable as evidenced
by riffles at the outside of meander bends. Substrate throughout this reach is typical of most of the
rest of the project -- gravel in some riffles and on some mid-channel bars, but mostly sand due to
insufficient sediment transport capacity. The edge of the pond located in this area is 30-40 feet
from the top of the right bank for approximately the first 250 feet of this section of the reach.
Another ford crossing exists downstream of where the stream runs adjacent to the pond. Riparian
vegetation includes both mature trees and dense privet stands and the width of the buffer varies
from 0 to greater than 100 feet. Nonnative vegetation includes privet, multi-flora rose and kudzu.
There are a large number of trees that have fallen in the channel through this reach due to bank
erosion.. The confluence with UT 2 is located within this reach.
3.1.5 Unnamed Tributary 1 (UT 1)
The UT1 project reach enters the project site through a culvert beneath the steeplechase course, and
flows northeast for 523 LF, joining Blockhouse Creek in the center of the infield. Amid-reach
culvert will not be replaced as part of the restoration project. Upstream of the culvert, an equestrian
ring is adjacent to the left bank of the stream. Downstream of the culvert a small mobile office
building and grassed lawn is adjacent to the left bank. A grassed field is adjacent to the right bank
of the entire length o£ this reach. _ The riparian. buffer. is narrow but_is comprised of many alders that
provide shading.
Upstream of the culvert, this low-sinuosity reach displays varying degrees of incision. The
substrate is primarily gravel except for the upstream 75 feet where the bed is silt-covered due to
backwater caused by a woody debris blockage. The mid-reach culvert is perched and is a barrier to
upstream aquatic species migration. Downstream of the mid-reach culvert, the stream is incised
and entrenched as it approaches the confluence with Blockhouse Creek.
:3..1.6 Unnamed Tributary 2 (UT Z)
:The UT2 project reach begins at the culvert outlet where the stream passes under the graveled main
entrance road to the FENCE center. UT2 flows southeast for 1,240 LF to its confluence with Reach
4 of Blockhouse Creek. This reach flows through a forested area composed of some mature
hardwoods at the upper end with an increasing population of young trees and invasive species
further downstream. The forest along this stream has been impacted by past forest thinning to
remove beetle damaged timber. Much of the lower half of this stream has an early successional
forest cover consisting of young trees and thick herbaceous vegetation. The stream is severely
aggraded due to insufficient slope to carry the large sediment load. In many sections of the reach,
the channel is not clearly defined and native gravel bed material is buried by more than 18 inches of
sand. As a result of this aggradation, the channel frequently migrates laterally. The aggradation is
:largely caused by an undersized and improperly placed culvert approximately 150 feet upstream of
the confluence with Blockhouse Creek. This culvert was apparently installed at an elevation much
higher than the historic stream channel to provide for a more level stream crossing. The outlet of
this culvert is perched 6 feet above the incised and entrenched channel, imposing a barrier to
upstream migration. This culvert. will be replaced as part of the restoration project.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 3-5 10/04/07

3.1.7 Unnamed Tributary 3 (UT 3)
The entire watershed of the UT3 project reach is contained within a forested tract on the FENCE
property. This project includes the lower 430 LF of UT3 which flows southwest from a primary
spring to its confluence with Blockhouse Creek. This section includes the majority of the perennial
reach of this stream. The length of this reach flows through a forested area which supports mature
hardwoods. Only the very top of this watershed is not forested and has been developed into a
pasture. This pasture is above any discernable channel features. There is no development along
this tributary, other than the pasture on the ridge top. A nature trail has been developed within the
forested area and parallels the stream over much of the project length. There are two foot-bridges
that cross the creek as a part of this trail system. FENCE maintains this trail system by undulating
the trail tread so that it sheds water and diverting water into settling areas so that it does not
contribute sediment to the stream. There are some natural erosional features along the stream
where the stream is cutting intothe sideofthe valleyandsome sedimentfrom these areasis found
in the stream..
.Table 3.2 summarizes the geomorphic parameters of project streams where restoration or enhancement is
proposed. The data is taken from surveyed cross-sections (Appendix G) representative of the reach. All
cross-sections were surveyed across well defined but not necessarily stable riffles to best. represent the
.existing geomorphic characteristics of the reach.
Table 3.2
Existing Representative Geomorphic Data for Blockhouse Creek & Restoration Tributaries
Yxraiucter ~ Blockhouse ! ~'s~ockhouse ~ 131ockh~~uee ~ Blockhouse t31ock1-ouse ~ XS ~~~1' 1 XS 1J'f Z
Creek ~ Creek Creek Creek C'rcek
tS #1 ~:S #2 \S #3 ?iti #4 XS #
Reach 1 12each 3 12each 3 ~ peach 4 Reach 4
Banlcfull
Width (Wbkf) 16.9 25.6 21.2 18.2.. 19.5 9.3 6.3

Bankfull Mean
Depth (dbke) 1.8 1.94 2.31 2.0 1.83 0.91 0.61
Cross-
sectional Area
(Abler) 30.6 49.7 49.1 36.3 35.6 8.4 3.8
W idth/Depth
Ratio (W/D
ratio)
9.4
13.2
9.2
9.1
10..7
10.2
10.3

Bankfull Max
Depth (dmbke) 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.2 1.5 0.9
Floodprone
Area Width
(Wf,a) 33 37.5 >150 23.2 ~60 23.6 22.6

Entrenchment
Ratio (ER) 1.9 LS >7 1.3 ~3 2.6 3.6
Bank Height
Ratio
(BHR) 2.8 2.0 1.1 3.9 17 3.2 2.8
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 3-6 10/04/Oi

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.
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
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).
With the possible exception of the downstream 800 linear feet of Blockhouse Creek on the project, the
mainstem has been channelized in the past. The longitudinal profile has been greatly altered as well by the
installation of long, steep culverts. The majority of the mainstem is in Step 5 of the Simon Channel Evolution
model. After channelization, the stream bed degraded and widened and is now aggrading and continuing the
widening process to reach quasi-equilibrium. This is evidenced by the continued bank erosion and by the
depositional benches present in some of the surveyed cross-sections that are still below the bankfull elevation.
UT 1 has also been channelized in the past and has varying degrees of incision. The majority of the channel
is in Step 4 of the Simon Channel Evolution model as the high banks are eroding and aggradation is not
evident. The mid-reach culvert has prevented a head cut from moving into the upper section of this reach.
UT 2 was likely channelized in the past as evidenced by vertical banks at the edge of the floodplain eroded
from past widening. Upstream of the project reach, this tributary has suffered severe down-cutting and
widening in the past decades, supplying the downstream reach with a large sediment load. Recent removal of
beetle infested pine trees adjacent to UT 2 has contributed a considerable amount of sediment to the stream as
well. The undersized and improperly installed culvert in the lower end of the reach has been a maj or factor in
preventing thissediment loadfrom being transported to Blockhouse Creek. ..Thus, thestream channel has
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 3-7 10/04/07

undergone significant aggradation that is still in progress. Upstream of this culvert, UT 2 is in Step 5 of the
evolution model. The short section of the reach downstream of this culvert is in Step 4 of the evolution model
as it is deeply incised and is actively eroding its high banks.
3.3 Bankfull Verification
Baker engaged several methods, all described in greater detail in the following paragraphs, to verify the
bankfull stage and discharge of the project reaches of Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries. Physical
indicators of bankfull stage were surveyed during the existing conditions channel survey. Cross-sectional
survey data was analyzed to determine the most likely bankfull stages on all project reaches. Once likely
bankfull stages were determined, channel parameter values including bankfull area and hydraulic radius were
known and could be used with other channel parameter values including stream slope and roughness in
Manning's Equation. Bankfull discharge results from the use of Manning's equation served as a starting
point for choosing discharge rates to analyze in the existing conditions HEC-RAS model.
Physical indicators of bankfull stage were identified and surveyed in the cross-section surveys. These
indicators were often noticeable slope breaks caused by bank erosion or sediment deposition on the channel
banks. Other identified physical bankfull indicators included transitions in bank vegetation, the top of an
undercut bank, and the back of a point bar. When a surveyed cross-section was plotted, the bankfull indicator
was checked against indicators in other surveyed cross-sections on the same reach to insure similar
differentials between water surface and assumed bankfull stage. Once bankfull stage was confidently
.estimated, channel parameters including bankfull area and hydraulic radius were calculated for use in
Manning's equation and other bankfull verification and design equations.
Manning's equation was used to identify a bankfull discharge through surveyed riffle cross-sections. A
Manning's roughness coefficient was selected based on the factors including channel bed material and the
presence and type of vegetation in the channel and on the banks. Calculated design discharge was based on
average channel slope and bankfull channel parameters including channel area and hydraulic radius calculated
from surveyed channel cross-sections with identified physical bankfull indicators. The results from
Manning's equation provided starting points for flows to examine in the HEC-RAS model.
Extensive and detailed topographic data was collected during the existing conditions survey. This
information was used to create a three dimensional topographic surface (surface model) of the stream channel
and floodplain. Stream channel and flood plain cross-sections were extracted from this surface model at an
interval of 20 feet and at key stations up and downstream of bridges and culverts. These cross-sections along
with the stream pattern were then imported into HEC-RAS 3.1.3, thus creating a detailed existing conditions
model of the channel and floodplain.
The HEC-RAS hydraulic model was refined in an attempt to model site conditions such as culverts, channel
roughness values based on vegetation and bed and bank materials, confluences with tributaries, and other
hydraulic conditions. The result was a model which was used with confidence to determine the stage-
discharge relationship throughout the project reach. In this manner, the model was used to assess stream
stage and the degree of connectivity to the floodplain that segments of stream exhibited at different modeled
flow rates (mainly those flow rates thought to be reasonable estimates of the bankfull flow as determined from
the previously described methods). The relationships of the stream stage to the physical indicators visible in
the extracted cross sections such as breaks in slope, depositional benches and point bars, top of bank, and
surveyed bankfull indicators were studied to determine which flow rates in each reach coincided most often
with channel features that could be indicating bankfull stage. The flow that produced a stage that coincided
with physical indicators was chosen as the bankfull flow or design discharge of that reach. An example of a
cross-section in HEC-RAS with the design discharge water surface elevation coinciding with a physical
bankfull indicator can be seen in Figure 3.2.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 3-8 10/04/07

Figure 3.2 HEC-RAS Cross-section and Water Surface Elevation Plot for Design Discharge
}~
I _, i Edit Oprior> PI t H~Ip
__ _._..
it I t ..~~ PlolOotions ~~~ ~ KeepPrevXSPlots i'rearPre~•
.~.,....,.~,~.~.....m.
River. , 4 4 r.:e~ '_~ _-_.__ _! ~_ _.
Reach {BH~I, -_~ Ri~~r9ta..4_00 -~ l~ t~ Blockhouse_sediment Plan: PIan08 1/3012007
___ --
- __- -
Description
.045 J
~... ~. Rouv i;._ ~ I -ar legend
~....w.
i ,~ i ~.., Vv5 PF 3
~I~,~r ~n 21.37 ^
Ground
i_' I:II
' 11.17 'd8? ~ , ~
_ char r d Bank Sta
'3' 3.73 881.57 ul i?1045ir 1 ~ ~,
4 ~. 551.1
fi 19.4 881
5' 0
72"1.95 ~~9. 51 l E',s -.,1Z 678
'8 23.71 379 _-_"
9 24.8 778.45 '. i=~ n _ 7 1 ~i r~~_,n
10 25.87 3Td
11 27.09 '7243
12 28.02 ',377
1331.1.._ 87E6
14.31.71 „76.>>, v
15 36.18 97R c
s16 36.62.... ~°- 676
d~_ e_
~ 1
17 39.41 875 w
18.39.79 874.78 j
19 41.24... 9,4 ~ i
20 42.34 J'3.68 ,, i~`
21 42.43 873.44 y f
22 43.66 87;.46 4:
23 44.74. r74 `
24 45.23 874.3 874 r: ,S
25 46.31 ~ 7d.97 ~.,
26 46.38 875 ~
17 46.44 , 875.02 ,.,
o '8 48.86 876
29 50 58 876.7
20 51.33 877
31 53.12 877.72
. 33 55.68 378.76
i 33 56.28 ~,7g ~.~ 872
-• -~-~- ---,- 20 40 60
~. ~ e
'. Station (tt)
The use of a regional curve to aid with determining design discharge was considered in the design process,
but determined not to be useful. Blockhouse Creek passes through anine-acre pond approximately 3,800
linear feet upstream of the project and 50% of the watershed contributing to the project reach is upstream of
the dam of this lake. Because of the storm flow storage this lake provides, channel forming discharge for
Blockhouse Creek is much smaller than is normal for a stream with the same size watershed. All regional
curve equation output considered was far too high in terms of discharge and channel .dimension to be
appropriate for Blockhouse Creek design.
3.3.1 Conclusions for Design Bankfull Discharge
The methods discussed in Section 3.3 were successful in building confidence in design
decisions related to discharge. In summary, the following steps were taken:
1. In the field, identify and survey representative cross-sections with physical bankfull
indicators
2. Compare the surveyed cross-sections with each other to insure consistency
__ __3. Use Manning's equation to estimate design discharge through these cross-sections _
4. Build and run a IIEC-RAS existing conditions model with estimated flows.
.BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. _ _ _ _PAGE 3-9 10/04/07

5. Considering all results, determine which flow is the bankfull flow or design discharge
Due to the complexity of the site and the absence of stable sections of channel to mimic within
the project reach, this approach was necessary to adequately assess the design discharges.
None of the previously mentioned methods of determining design bankfull discharge would
have worked alone with confidence, but by taking these different approaches solutions were
reached with confidence.
Two design bankfull discharges were determined for Blockhouse Creek and reach specific
discharges for each of the unnamed tributaries (Table 3.3). A design discharge of 90 cubic feet
per second (cfs) was selected for Reach 1 and 120 cfs was selected for Reaches 2 through 4.
While the watershed size of this stream increases downstream of this confluence with the
addition of other small tributaries and drainages, the combination of the methods used to
determine discharge showed that bankfull discharge does not increase significantly within the
project boundary. This fact can be attributed to the hydrology of the watershed and the timing
of peak discharges in the stream system following a high rainfall event.
Using the aforementioned analysis approach, 30 cfs was chosen to be the design discharge. for
UT 1 and 13 cfs was chosen as the design discharge for UT 2.
Table 3.3
Design Discharge Summary for Blockhouse Creek and Tributaries by reach and indicating
drainage area.
_ __ -
Project Feature 1?odvnstream Drainage area Design Discharge
- -
(mi`)
~~
(cfs)
Blockhouse Reach 1 1.63 90
Blockhouse Reach 2 1.97 120
Blockhouse Reach 3 2.21 120
Blockhouse Reach 4 2.44 120
Unnamed Tributary 1 0.33 30
Unnamed Tributary 2 0.09 13
3.4 Reference Indicators
Hydraulic and sediment modeling using HEC-RAS was instrumental in ascertaining information about stream
processes and stability that could then be used as design information. A section of Blockhouse Creek
approximately 3501inear feet upstream of the culvert at the upper project boundary was surveyed to estimate
upstream sediment supply. This sediment reference is a stable section of stream with defined pools and riffles
and awell-graded substrate -all indicators of adequate sediment transport. Pavement and subpavement
analyses were performed to determine the sediment supply to the project reach. This section of channel will
not be replicated in the project reach because its channel shape (1:1 banks) would not be stable for one or
more post-construction vegetation growing seasons. Through hydraulic and sediment modeling in HEC-RAS,
across-section had to be determined for the design that would have the same sediment transport capacity and
competency as the reference, but with constructible dimensions. With proper sediment transport capacity, the
project reach will neither aggrade nor degrade, and. will develop and maintain awell-graded. substrate similar
to that of the reference section.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 3-10 10/04/07

Design ratios for pattern and profile were based on evaluating dimensionless ratios from reference reach sites
in the NCDOT reference reach database and based on ratios used by Baker at many similar sites that have........
been successful (Table 3.4). Big Branch in Surry County from the NCDOT reference reach database
(Appendix F) is a best-fit reference for Blockhouse Creek due to its similar watershed size, substrate,
sinuosity, and slope. The specific design parameters are described in detail in Section 5.
Table 3.4 Design Ratios and Guidelines for Restoration of Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries.
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX
Stream Type (Rosgen) C/E4 B4
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 3.5 5.0 4.0 6.0
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 10.0 12 12.0 18.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.1 1.0 1 ~1
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 7.0 12.0 N/A N/A
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf L„8 3.0 N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 3.5 8.0 N/A N/A
Sinuosity, K 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.2
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.5 2.0 1.1 1.8
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.3 1.7 1,;1 1.5
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps/Wbkf 4.0 7.0 1.5 5.0
3.5 Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions
The predisturbance habitat within and adjacent to the proposed project area consists of a Piedmont/Low
Mountain Bottomland Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The existing condition of this
natural habitat type is relatively disturbed to very disturbed. A general. description o£each community
follows.
3.5.1 Piedmont/Low Mountain Bottomland Forest
This ecological community covers the entire project area and is located on large floodplains in the project
area. The riparian buffer varied from highly degraded and narrow corridors of 0 to 15 feet in width upstream
of Hunting Country.Road to broadcorridorsexceeding 50 feet in width, downstream. Thedominant canopy.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 3-11 10/04/07

species of the piedmont/mountain bottomland forest area included tulip poplar (LiriodendJron tzclipifera),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis ), sweetgum (Liguidambar styraciflua), white oak (Qzcercus alba),
Oglethorpe oak (Quercus oglethorpensis), willow oak (Quercus phellos), Red oak (Quercus rzcbra), black
willow (Salix nigra), Canada hemlock (Tszcnga canadensis), black cherry (Prunes serotina), white pine (Pinis
strobes), shortleaf pine (Pinis echinata), loblolly pine (Pinis taeda), Virginia pine (Pinis virginiana), box
elder (Ater negundo), red maple (Ater rubrum), pignut hickory (carya glabra), hackberry (celtis laevigata),
persimmon (diospyros vif°giniana), beech (Fagus grandifolia), and black walnut (Jicglans nigra). Understory
species included flowering dogwood (Corms florida), silky dogwood (Corms amomum), ironwood
(Carpinzcs caroliniana), paw paw (Asimina ti°iloba), tag alder (Alms serc^zclata), sweet shrub (Calicanthus
floridus), Carolina silverbell (Halesia Carolina), elderberry (Sambzcces canadensis), and sassafras (Sassafras.
albidem). dog hobble (Lindera benzoin). Woody vine and herbaceous species consisted of poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans ), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), grape (Vitis spp.), blackberry (Rubes spp.), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Virginia dayflower
(Commelina virginica), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica),
asters (Aster spp.), golden rod (Solidago spp.), wingstem (Actinomeris alternifolia), jewelweed (Impatiens
spp.), Queen Anne's Lace (Dauczcs carota), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), partridge pea (Cassia
,fasciczdate), and sedges (Carex spp.).
Many places are heavily infested with exotic invasive species. Invasive species found at this site include
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Nepal grass (Microstegizcm vimineum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), and multi-flora rose (Rosa mzcliflora). To a less extent is a small stand of kudzu found in the
riparian zone in reach 4. These invasive species are having an adverse affect on native vegetation.
BAKER ENGINEERING, NY INC. PAGE 3-12 10/04/07

4.0 PROJECT_SITE_WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
4.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
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 USAGE 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 a 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 identify potential wetlands. The
project area was examined utilizing the jurisdictional definition detailed in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 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, 1988).
An on-site survey of the project area was conducted on August 2, 2006, to identify potential USAGE
jurisdictional wetland locations in the project area. Wetland determinations were made by evaluating
soils, vegetation, and observable hydrologic indicators within the project area. One wetland complex was
identified and evaluated within the project area. Upon further examination, the wetland complex was
actually determined to be two separate, distinct wetland areas totaling approximately 0.10 acre in size.
The scrub-shrub wetland complex is located adjacent to UT 2 as shown on the project drawings. These
wetlands likely support few wetland functions due to their size and very limited wetland vegetation.
There are only a few individual wetland plants at each area.
UT 2 has a high sediment supply caused by past severe channel erosion upstream of the project boundary.
.Upstream of the project boundary to the headwaters of this stream, the channel banks and bed have
.undergone degradation through a forested reach most likely caused by past logging operations or
improper culvert installation. Through this process, large amounts of sand and silt have entered the
project reach but, due to an undersized and improperly installed culvert near the downstream end of UT 2,
.this sediment was not able to leave the system and has therefore aggraded the entire valley bottom. This
is evidenced by the fact that natural coarse stream substrate lies beneath approximately 18 inches of loose
sand in the existing stream channel. This stream and valley aggradaton has led to the formation of these
.wetlands.
A Regulatory Specialist from the US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office has visited the site
and isfamiliar with the wetland complex in question and our proposed plans.
4.2 Hydrologic Characterization
Polk County has an average annual rainfall of 65.43 inches and an average growing season that is 214
days long, beginning most years around April 1 and ending on October 31 (NRCS, 2000). Baker
retrieved rainfall data for the year 2006 from National Weather Service supported weather station
#318744, located in Tryon (Latitude 35.20583°, Longitude -82.25167° (NC Climate Office- CRONOS
Database). Monthly precipitation amounts from January through December 2006 are compared with Polk
County WETS table (NRCS 2000) average monthly rainfall, in Table 4.1. These data indicate that over
the entire year, total rainfall was below normal.
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 4-1 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

Table 41
Site Precipitation Summary
__--._ -
11onih-i~ e-ar ~yk~ I r~ r} ~ .,µ ~ a ~` a~~~a 2 ~,- > Dei~iation of Observed ~,
r~~~fs~,p~a~~~W~axr~ (k~~_3 ~~-s4~xa4~at 1:r~.~.d~~~~~aa~..,~ ~3~~; from Average {in)
___ _.
January-U6 4.59 5.81 -1.22
February-06 1.7 5.11 -3.41
March-06 1.1 6.66 -5.56
April-06 3.21 4.75 -1.54
May-06 2.42 5.77 -3.35
June-06 3.48 5.62 -2.14
July-06 2.5 5.26 -2.76
August-06 7.3 6.18 1.12
September-06 8.29 5.56 2.73
October-06 5.9 4.95 .95
November-06 4.57 4.91 -.34
December-06 7.39 4.85 2.54
Total 52.45 65.43 -12.98
4.3 Soil Characterization
The Chewacla Fine soil series, taxonomic subgroup Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts, is a very deep, somewhat
poorly drained soil located on 0 to 2% slopes in the floodplain. The surface horizon of the soil contains
approximately two percent organic matter. It has a moderate permeability with water movement in the
most restrictive layer being moderately high. The high water table depth for Chewacla loam is shallow at
6 to 18 inches from November to April; at other times of the year, water availability to five feet remains
high. The Chewlaca soil series is on the hydrologic group C list for Polk County and although not hydric,
it does contain hydric inclusions. A description of other non-hydric soils within the project boundaries is
provided in Section 2, and a soils map for the site is provided as Figure 2.2.
4.4 Plant Community Characterization
4.4.1 Scrub-Shrub Wetlands
One scrub-shrub wetland complex was present in the project. This complex consisted of two
small distinct wetlands. This wetland complex was located at mid-reach along the left bank on
UT2. Vegetation in this wetland was dominated by scrub-shrubs, with no canopy sized trees
present. Woody plant species consisted of immature red maple (Ater rubrzzm), alder (Alms
serruluta), black willow (Salix nigru), and sweetgum (Ligzzidumbar styraciflua). Herbaceous
species consisted of cattails (Typha spp.), soft rush (Juncos effizsus), sedges (Carex spp.), deer-
tongue switchgrass (Dichanthelizzm clandestinzzm), lady's thumb (Polygonum persicuria), and
tearthumb (Polygomzm sagittatum). Only a few individuals of each of these species were present.
......Exotic invasive plant species were prevalent within the wetland boundaries. Wetland hydrologic......
indicators included saturated soils and drainage patterns in the wetland. Soils were sandy clay
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 4-2 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

loam and ranged from dark gray to very dark grayish brown (lOYR 4/1 to lOYR 3/2) with reddish
gray mottles (SYR 5/2).
4.5 Proposed Wetland Impacts and Justification
The following steps must be taken to properly restore UT 2;
1. The culvert near proposed station 10+00 must be removed and replaced with an adequately sized
culvert with the inlet invert much lower than the existing.
2. UT 2 must be restored to a steeper slope (1.8%) to adequately transport its sedimentload.
3. A floodplain must be excavated at the top of the bankfull elevation of the restored stream.
All but 25% of the existing wetlands are within the proposed excavated floodplain area. The elevation of
the proposed floodplain is two to three feet lower than the existing floodplain elevation; therefore the
wetlands within this area will be lowered and potentially could be destroyed. The areas of the wetlands
not within the proposed excavated floodplain would likely be drained due to lowering of the water table.
These wetlands are "ephemeral" and formed because of the backwater and aggradation impacts of the
aforementioned culvert. Wetland 1 is 0.049 acre and Wetland 2 is 0.051 acre and both are isolated from
other wetland habitat, so this complex is unlikely to support an extensive wetland ecosystem. It appears
that the functions supported by this wetland complex are minimal.
We believe that the ecological benefits gained from restoring a stable and functioning stream will far
outweigh the lost functions from this marginal wetland complex. Furthermore, while we are not receiving
any mitigation credit for wetland creation, the excavation and planting of the proposed floodplain will
likely encourage wetlands of better quality to form in the future. We will transplant existing wetland
vegetation to the newly created floodplain as sod mats. This should promote the establishment of this
vegetation and potentially the. wetland habitat.
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 4-3 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

5.0 PROJECT_SITE_RESTORATION_PLAN
This section discusses. the design approach selected_for stream restoration on the Blockhouse Creek
project site.
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The design approach for Blockhouse Creek and its unnamed tributaries were based on these general
goals:
Create geomorphically stable conditions on the project site.
Improve and restore hydrologic connections between creek and floodplain.
/ Improve water quality in the watersheds.
/ Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
Design objectives are a set of guidelines used to accomplish these goals effectively and efficiently. The
following criteria were incorporated into the design of the creeks and tributaries on this site:
1. Make important design decisions based on hydraulic and sediment modeling in order to solve. the
issues of concern with process-based, site-specific information and with consideration of
restoration design research. Form-based methods compliment and balance this approach.
-- 2. -Consider constructability as a primary design consideration in order to produce a realistic design.
that will be possible to build, given field constraints and construction tolerances.
3. Design will minimize disturbance to ecologically functional and physically stable areas while
considering the long-term stability of the system first. Every effort was made in the design and
:will be made during construction to avoid impacting high quality riparian buffer areas and
removing existing mature trees. Native vegetation and trees that must be removed for restoration
will be either transplanted or used for in-stream structures and bio-engineering techniques.
4. Structures and over-all design will attempt to use native materials and minimize the need for
materials to be brought on-site. This will produce habitat favoring native flora and fauna, reduce
compaction and site disturbance from material transport, and produce an aesthetically pleasing
result with minimal evidence of site disturbance.
5.2 Design Approach by Reach
Blockhouse Creek Reaches 1 and 2 -Proposed Sta. 0+00 to 14+14 -Restoration
Reach 1 of the mainstem of Blockhouse Creek will be addressed with a Priority II restoration approach.
A meandering channel will be constructed within an excavated floodplain utilizing the currently grassed
area adjacent to the existing left bank. At the time of stream restoration construction, two bridges
crossing on this reach will be reconstructed by a separate contractor to replace existing stream crossings.
The new bridges will be constructed in the location of existing bridges or culvert crossings. This reach of
the restoration project will include in-stream structures and bioengineering techniques including angled
log sills, a log vane, root wad clusters, and vegetated geolifts. With the exception of some healthy black
willow trees and alders, this reach has very little quality riparian vegetation to work around.
Reach 2 of the mainstem of Blockhouse Creek, having a similar existing condition to that of Reach 1, will
also be addressed with a Priority II restoration approach utilizing open areas adjacent to the creek to
construct a meandering channel within an excavated floodplain. This relatively short reach was designed
with different channel dimensions than Reach 1 due to the larger design discharge chosen. In-stream
structures and bioengineering techniques employed in this reach include a log vane, a rock vane, a
constructed riffle, root wad clusters, and vegetated geolifts.
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-1 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

Blockhouse Creek Reach 3 -Proposed Sta. 14+34 to 25+44 - Level I Enhancement
Reach 3 of the mainstem of Blockhouse Creek will be addressed with Level I enhancements to stabilize
unstable banks, improve habitat, and provide floodplain access. A restoration approach will not be
pursued along this reach due to site constraints including equestrian facilities and an abundance of mature
trees that the landowner wishes not to be removed. This reach passes through a culvert under the
steeplechase course, under a bridge for N.C. 1501 (Hunting Country Road), under a small footbridge, and.
ends at the inlet of the culvert under Interstate 26. Numerous in-stream structures and bioengineering
techniques will be installed including a rock cross-vane, angled log sills, log vanes, root wads, and
vegetated geolifts. These structures will maintain a defined thalweg during low flows to prevent
aggradation and protect banks during higher flows while providing excellent habitat. Where possible,
bankfull benches will be excavated to alleviate stress on the channel banks during high. flows..
Blockhouse Creek Reach 4 -Proposed Sta. 28+37 to 46+17 -Restoration
Reach 4 of the mainstem of Blockhouse Creek will be addressed with a Priority II restoration approach.
Roughly 400' of channel in the upstream section of this reach will be constructed offline of the existing
alignment within an excavated floodplain adjacent to the southwest of the existing right bank. This new
alignment will be through an existing field and will not require the removal of any existing trees. The
existing stream bed profile in this section of the reach is too low in elevation to utilize due to the elevation
doss below the existing low-head dam 75 feet downstream of the Interstate 26 culvert. The low-head dam
will be removed as part of the restoration. Once the new channel is complete and the water is turned, the
existing channel in this section of the reach will be filled to the bankfull. Impacts to existing trees along
.this channel will be minor.
The rest of the reach will primarily be restored within the existing alignment. Fooodplain grading will be
relatively shallow due to a lower degree of incision and a desire to preserve existing mature trees.
However the development of a floodplain will be important for maximizing storage of flood flows and for
the removal of sediment. Minor adjustments of the alignment will occur to correct the existing unstable
pattern. Overly sinuous meanders are causing excessive erosion and are undermining adjoining trees.
Meanders will be constructed that avoid most existing trees, provide stable geometry and banks, and have
the correct plan-form. This reach of the restoration project will include in-stream structures and
bioengineering techniques including angled log sills, log vanes, rock J-hook vanes, constructed riffles, a
rock cross-vane, root wad clusters, and vegetated geolifts. Structures and geolifts will be constructed to
stabilize the existing degrading stream banks while providing improved aquatic habitat. Two existing
ford-type stream crossings located within this reach (excluded from the easement).andtwo pedestrian
bridges will be preserved and worked around.
Unnamed Tributary 1
UT 1 will be addressed with a Priority II restoration approach. The section upstream of the mid-reach
culvert will be constructed mostly within the existing alignment while the section downstream of this
culvert will be constructed with considerably more sinuosity as it approaches its confluence with the
mainstem of Blockhouse Creek. This reach of the restoration project will include in-stream structures and
bioengineering techniques including angled log sills, log vanes, constructed. riffles, root. wad .clusters, and
vegetated geolifts.
Unnamed Tributary 2
UT 2 will be addressed with a Priority II restoration approach. The restored channel alignment will
deviate from the existing alignment throughout much of the reach. The restored channel was designed to
be steeper and with less sinuosity than the existing channel in order to provide more slope needed for
sediment transport. Significant floodplain excavation will take place, increasing in depth downstream, to
achieve a steeper channel to meet grade with a new culvert to be installed at a proper elevation replacing
the existing undersized and.. improperly installed culvert. Downstream of the culvert, the stream will be
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-2 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

restored to a step-pool channel as it becomes steeper crossing the Blockhouse Creek floodplain to its
confluence with the mainstem of Blockhouse Creek. Upstream of the culvert, in-stream structures and
bioengineering techniques include angled log sills, constructed riffles, root wad clusters, and vegetated
geolifts. Downstream of the culvert, in-stream structures and bioengineering techniques include
constructed riffles, boulder steps, .log sills with root wads, root wad clusters, and. vegetated geolifts. _
Unnamed Tributary 3
UT 3 is included in this project as a stream that will be preserved. A 50 foot conservation easement will
be established along the lower 4301inear feet of this tributary. Existing nature trails will remain within
the easement since they allow_for quiet enjoyment which does not conflict with the purposes of the
easement.
5.3 Summary of Design Approaches for Stream Restoration
A number of analyses and data were incorporated in the development of site-specific natural channel
design approaches. Among these are hydraulic and sediment transport analyses, existing site conditions
data collection, incorporation of reference reach databases, and evaluation of results from past projects.
.Design criteria are dependent on the general restoration approach that was determined to be a best fit for
the Blockhouse Creek site (Table 5.1). The general approach for restoration and enhancement was based
on the reach's potential, as determined during initial site assessment. This general approach was tailored
to specific reaches and segments of the stream during the design process. Specific design criteria have
been developed so that the pattern, cross-sectional dimensions, and profile are consistent with the
.analyses and data available. These criteria are presented in the construction documents.
Following initial application of the design approach, detail refinements were made to accommodate the
existing valley morphology, to work around project constraints, to minimize unnecessary disturbance to_
.existing natural assets, and to allow for natural channel adjustment following construction. The
construction documents have been tailored to produce a cost and resource efficient design that is
constructible, using no more detail than can be expected from the tools of construction, with the
philosophy that the stream will adapt to the inherent uniformity of the restoration project and be allowed
to adjust over long periods of time under the processes of flooding, re-colonization of vegetation, and
geologic influences.
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-3 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

,Table 5.1 Proposed stre am type and r ationale for designed project streams.
--
F~~,a~t~ -
Proposed -
IZatioi~~ile
~~ Strea n>I
Type
Priority II restoration will be used to change profile and cross-section
characteristics as well as to create a meandering channel with stable riffle-pool
Blockhouse Reach 1 E4 morphology natural to the valley. This restoration focuses on building a stream
Blockhouse Reach 2 system that will transport its sediment load without degrading, inundate the
floodplain at flows higher than the design discharge, and provide terrestrial and
aquatic species habitat.
Level I enhancement will be used to correct channel dimension and adjust
profile to achieve a defined riffle-pool morphology with rich aquatic habitat in a
Blockhouse Reach 3 E4 stable channel. In-stream structures will be installed to protect the newly
adjusted channel and to facilitate low-flow sediment transport by maintaining a
defined thalweg.
Priority II restoration will be used to stabilize and restore pattern, profile, and
cross-section characteristics to achieve stable riffle-pool morphology natural to
the valley. The restoration of this reach focuses on building a stream system
Blockhouse Reach 4 E4 that will transport its sediment load without aggrading or degrading, inundate
the floodplain at flows higher than the design discharge, and provide terrestrial
and aquatic habitat.
Priority II restoration will be used to change profile and cross-section
characteristics as well as to create a meandering channel with stable riffle-pool
morphology natural to the valley. This restoration design focuses on
Unnamed Tributary 1 E4 transporting sediment load without degrading the channel. A floodplain will be
excavated along the channel corridor to provide flood. relief. In-stream
structures and bioengineering practices will be installed to protect the newly
constructed channel and to provide aquatic habitat.
Priority II restoration will be used to change pattern, profile, and cross-sectional
dimension to create a channel. with morphology natural to the valley. The
upstream 970 linear feet of the channel will be constructed as an E4 type
channel with the slope necessary to transport its high sediment load without
Unnamed Tributary 2 E4 upper
B4 lower aggrading or degrading. The downstream section of the reach will be
.. constructed as a steeper step-pool channel as it crosses the Blockhouse Creek
floodplain to the confluence. In-stream structures and bioengineering practices
will be installed to protect the newly constructed channel and to provide aquatic
habitat. Aquatic species passage through the crossing is a priority in this reach.
A upper, Preservation of the lower 430 linear feet of this tributary by protecting the
Unnamed Tributary 3 B-E lower corridor with a conservation easement.

5.4 Design Parameters
The primary objective of the restoration project is to construct a stream with a stable dimension, pattern,
and profile that transports its sediment load and has access to its floodplain at bankfull flows and to
enhance riparian and aquatic habitat in the stream corridor. The proposed design parameters for each of
the reaches are detailed in Table 5.2 (A and B).
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-4 10/04/07
____ A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

The. design. rationale and design parameters for all of the design reaches are presented below.
Dimension
The design proposes cross-sectional modifications to reduce bank erosion and improve sediment
transport competency and capacity. Fooodplain grading is proposed to provide connectivity of this
improved channel to the floodplain at the design flows previously discussed. Constructability and
stability immediately after constructions were key factors in designing the cross-sections. Typical
cross sections are shown on the plan sheets.
: There are two typical pool sections shown on the plan sheets for each reach. The reason for the
different cross-sections is that, due to pattern geometry, the more standard "A" pool section would
not be constructible in pools where the angles between the riffles were higher than a certain
threshold. Therefore, a "B" pool section was included for those pools where the point of maximum
depth must be toward the center of the. channel rather than .offset toward. the outside bank of the.
meander.
Pattern
The proposed channel alignments in the restoration reaches, with the exception of the lower end of
UT 2, are intended to create a sinuous channel at a stable slope with riffle-pool morphology. The
lower end of UT 2 will be constructed as a step-pool system where stream energy is dissipated in
the channel bed rather than laterally. Higher meander width ratios on most of the restored channels
were intended to allow for lateral dissipation of energy and provide a floodplain sufficient for future
:natural channel development. Some sections of project streams were laterally constrained by
equestrian facilities or by high value mature trees that the landowner did not want removed. In
these locations, the proposed belt width is limited but profile diversity and stable dimension will be
restored. Plan views of the main channels_are shown on the. attached plan. sheets,
:Profile/Bedform
:Design efforts attempt to establish apool-riffle sequence which is both hydraulically diverse and
stable. The lower end of UT 2 will be restored as a step-pool system while the rest of the project
reaches will have riffle-pool morphology. Riffles throughout the design reaches are between 1.5
and 2 times the average slope of the channel while there is no slope from the head to tail of the
pools. The maximum pool depth is proposed to be constructed slightly downstream from the
meander curve apex. In-stream structures placed according to the pool-to-pool spacing range as
well as the natural tendency of the stream, dictate where pools will be located in sections of the
stream with lower sinuosity. Existing culverts present a significant. constraint to the pattern and
profile design throughout the project. Efforts were made to maximize diversity while. designing a
channel with adequate. sediment transport capacity within .the profile constraints.
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-5 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

Table 5.2a Proposed design ~ r.~r.nn~ ci ;and geomorphic characteristics for the Blockhouse Creek ~ ~:~1~ ~:r 1 caches.

~
~-__.. _.
Bkxkhouse
Ruth 1 ;

Blockhouse
Reach 2 w~ _ _
~s~~ ~s r==~aar~~

li ~~ ~.~ _ _~_
[3lockhousc

~ re $
____y Min Max Min Max Min Max Min 11ax
I Stream Type E4 E4 ~ E4 r
2. Drama e Area -square miles 1.63 1.97 2.21 ' .-i4
3. Bankfull Width (wbkf) -feet 15.5 18 18 18
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) -feet 1.9 2.25 2.25 2.25
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 8.2 8 8 8
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) - s uare feet 29.4 35.6 35.6 35.6
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbke) -feet per
second 3.5 5 3.5 5 3.5 5 3.5 5
S. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) -cubic feet per
second 90 120 120 120
9. Bankfull Max De th (dmbkf) -feet 2.5 3 3 3
10. dmbkf /dbkf ratio 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
11. Low Bank Hei ht to dmbkf Ratio I 1 1 1
12. F-oodprone Area Width (w a) -feet 70+ 70+ 45+ 50+
13. Enhenchment Ratio (ER) >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 X2.2
14. Meander length (Lm) -feet 109 186 126 216 126 216 126 216
15. Ratio of meander length to bankfull width
(Lm/wbkf) 7 12 7 12 7 12 7 12
16. Radius of curvature (R~) -feet
17. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull
Wldth (Rc/wbkf) 16
1 31
2 18
1 36
2 18
1 36
2 18
1 36
2
18. Belt width (wbh) -feet 55 124 63 144 63 144 63 144
19. Meander Width Ratio (wml/Wbkf) 3.5 8 3.5 8 3.5 8 3.5 8
20. Sinuosity (K) Valley Slope/Channel Slope 1.19 1.19 1.12 1. 16
21. Valle Slope -feet per foot 0.0064 0.0064 0.0028 0.0058
22. Channel Slo e (s~hannel) -feet er foot 0.0054 0.0054 0.0025 0.0050
23. Pool Slope (s ol) -feet per foot 0 0 0 0
24. Maximum Pool De th (d oil) -feet 3.8 6.6 4.5 7.9 4.5 7.9 4.5 7.9
25. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankiiall
De th (d ool/dbkf) 2 3.5 2 3.5 2 3.5 2 3.5
26. Pool Width (w ooi) -feet 20 23 23 23
/27. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width
(w ool /wbkf) 1 3 1.3 1.3 1.3
28. Pool. Area (A ool) - s uare feet 46 51 65.2 70.6 65.2 70.6 65.2 70.6
/29. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area
lA ool/'dbkf) 1 6 l .7 1.8 2 1.8 2 1.8 2
30. Pool-to-Pool Spacing -feet 62 109 72 126 72 126 72 1.26
3l. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool Spacing to Bankfull
Width ( - /Wbkf) 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7
32. Riffle Slope (sT;eae) -feet per foot 0.0081 0.0011 0.0081 0.00108 0.00375 0.005 0.0075 0.01
/33. R/atio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope
\Sriffle~ Sbkf) 1.5 2 1.5 2 1.5 2 I.5 2
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-6 10/04!07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

Table 5.2b
Ih:;~~~~; Parameters and I'r~l~t~,~~~~'CeomorphicCharacteristics
_ t ~ r~ its ~3 ~
311 ~€3 :f E'~. ~
eale ss s~ r~;~s~l~ ~ ~ slasa~srl ai
d I t1G?4~ ~1 L ~
E,~~,.. ; 63 d ~~~ 1 fi,1~1f
~ !'11~si i y: °
a~ ~;E1 ~ res~~l~
1 Y ~`nnamed
1 Ylhnta['y Z
lower reach
_._,,.. ~ _,._,.__. _ . -~ ....
Min.. _„ i41ar_ ~ __
_ _ . _
I`tin 'lax __
_
Vlin ~ h1~~x
'vli~1 Max
1 Stream Type E4 E4 E4 li4
2. Draina e Area - s uare miles 0.33 ~ 0.33 0.09 0.09
3. Bankfull Width (wb~) -feet 10 l0 7 7
4. Bankfull Mean De th (dbkf) -feet l .OS 1.05 0.7 0.7
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 9.5 9.5 10 ] 0
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) - SF 10.5 10.5 5 5
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbke) -fps 3.5 5 3.5 5 3.5 5 4 6
8. Bankfull Dischar e (Qbkf) - cfs 30 30 13 13
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) -feet 1.5 1.5 I 1
10. dmbkf /dbkf ratio 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
11. Low Bank Hei ht to dmbkf Ratio 1 1 1 I
12. Floodprone Area Width (w a) -feet 30+ 35+ 35+ 35+
13. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
14. Meander length (Lm) -feet 70 120 70 120 49 84 - -
I5. Ratio of meander length to bankfull width
(Lm/Wbkf) 7 12 7 12 7 12 - -
14
16. Radius of curvature (R~) -feet 10 20 10 20 7
//17. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull width
\Rc / Wbkf) 1 2 I 2 I 2 ,. -
18. Belt Width (wbi~) -feet 35 80 35 80 25 56 - -
19. Meander Width Ratio (wbe/Woke) 3.5 8 3.5 8 3.5 8 - -
20. Sinuosity (K) Valley Slo e/Channel Sloe 1.15 1..18 1.28 L L4
21. Valley Slo e -feet er foot 0.015 0.0225 0.023 0.033
22. Channel Slope (s~namel) -feet per foot 0.013 0.019 0.018 0.0290
23. Pool Slo e (s ool) -feet er foot 0 0 0 0
24. Maximum Pool Depth (d ooi) -feet 2 3 2 3 1.4 2.5 2
25. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankfull
Depth (d oo~/dbkf) 1.9 2.9 1.9 2.9 2 3.5 2.9
26. Pool Width (w ooi) -feet l 1 I 1 8 7.5
27. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull. Width (wpool
/ Wbkf) 1 1 1.1 1.1 L 1
28. Pool Area (A oo~) -square feet 17.1 17.2 17.1 17.2 8.3 8.5 9
/29. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area
VA ool/Abkf) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8
30. Pool-to-Pool S acin -feet 40 70 40 70 28 49 10.5 35
31. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool Spacing to Bankfull
Width ( - /Wbkf) 4 7 4 7 4 7 1.5 5
32. Riffle Sloe (s,.;ffle) -feet per foot 0.02 0.027 0.02 0.027 0.027 0.036 0.032 0.052
33. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope (s,.;f~e/
Sbkf) LS 2 1.5 2 LS 2 1.1 1.8
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-7
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION
10/04/07

5.5 Sediment Transport
As discussed in Section 3.2 Channel Stability Assessment, Lane (1955) describes a generalized
relationship of stream stability wherein the product of sediment load and sediment size is proportional to
the product of stream slope and discharge. Sediment size, stream slope, and stream discharge can be
assessed in astraight-forward manner; however, sediment load is difficult to quantify because of the
numerous processes controlling sediment delivery and movement within the stream system.
Sediment transport competency is a measure of a stream's ability to move a particle of a certain size and
is an important part of understanding geomorphic process at work in the system. In the project reaches,
the coarsest sediment sampled moves readily through the system and thus competency is not a design
concern. From amass-balance standpoint, sediment transport capacity is a much more important
analysis. Sediment transport capacity refers to the stream's ability to move a mass of sediment past a
cross-section per unit of time, expressed in pounds/second or tons/year. Sediment transport capacity can
be assessed directly by developing a sediment transport rating curve (see Figure 6.1 below) using
measured sediment transport data from the site taken during flow events. But since measured rating curve
development is extremely difficult, other empirical relationships are often used to assess sediment
transport capacity. In this case, sediment transport capacity was calculated based on the empirically-
developed equations available in HEC-RAS for transport calculation (Bruner, 2002). The Meyer-Peter &
Muller Equation and Toffaleti's Equation were used to calculate sediment transport capacity in the
mainstem of Blockhouse Creek and in UT 1 Toffaletti's Equation and the Yang Equation were used for
UT 2 due to the sandy nature of its sediment supply. It is important to note that sediment transport
capacity estimates do not reveal sediment supply to the stream, such that a stream maybe carrying much
less sediment than it has the potential to carry, so that sediment transport is limited by sediment supply.
However, by estimating sediment transport capacity in the stream reach immediately upstream of the
project reach and creating similar capacity to carry sediment in the design reach, sediment transport
continuity can be achieved by balancing potential sediment supply with transport capacity using a mass-
balance approach between reaches.
The sediment transport modeling capabilities of HEC-RAS were used to determine stable channel designs
(cross-sectional shape and energy slope) given sediment supply and design discharge for existing cross-
sections within or just upstream of the project based on their present degree of stability. Design based on
a capacity limited approach assumes that the sediment supply into the reach will be sufficient. If the
sediment load entering the project reach is not severely limited, the reach is not at risk ofdown-cutting. It
is not at risk of aggrading if the channel is designed according to the stable channel design calculations.
The sediment rating curves produced for this design plot channel bottom width against energy slope.
Channel side slopes are determined based on constructability and are a basis by which the sediment rating
curve is developed. With this and most stream restoration projects, slope is a parameter that can only be
adjusted to a certain degree by altering pattern to increase or decrease stream length between control
elevations such as upstream and downstream project boundaries and culvert inverts. Therefore, channel
bottom width is the parameter with the most potential variability. When the sediment rating curve is
..developed, it is analyzed to determine the best channel bottom width to use to insure that the restored
channel neither aggrades nor degrades.
Adequate sediment transport capacity analysis provides confidence in the capability of the design to
transport along-term balanced volumetric sediment load through all segments of the restoration reach. A
design incorporating sediment transport results has a higher likelihood of maintaining its vertical stability
while adjusting within stable limits to watershed and in-stream changes.
3UCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-8 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

Figure 5.1 -Sediment Rating Curve for Blockhouse Creek
.0.014
0.012
.0.01
0.008
'~ -r- 90 cfs,1.5:1 SS
0
~ 120 cfs,1.5:1 S5
0.006
W
0.004
0.002
0
p 5 __10 _____15 20 25 30 35 40 45 __ 50
Channel bottan wictth {ftj
5.5.1 Methodology
Numerous data, as described earlier, were used to create a detailed HEC-RAS model. For each reach, an
existing or upstream stable cross-section was chosen to use for design (or reference). Based on the
findings of bulk and subpavement sampling from riffles, point- and mid-channel bar locations,
appropriate sediment distributions and sediment modeling equations were determined for sediment
transport modeling. The HEC-RAS sediment transport module incorporates sediment distribution data
from field samples to determine the concentration of sediment moving during design flow conditions
based on the results of the water surface profile and velocities produced by the physical characteristics of
the channel and floodplain. The result is a volumetric sediment discharge (or capacity) for the chosen
design flow rate. The analyses were checked for sensitivity to design sediment size. Transport capacity
had an acceptably small sensitivity to the variations in distribution exhibited in the sediment samples.
Volumetric sediment discharge was analyzed at existing stable cross-sections in, or just upstream of, the
project reach. These reference cross-sections are used to determine what the design sediment flow rate
should be. The stable channel design module within HEC-RAS allows the modeler to incorporate design
sediment discharge and design flow rate data in order to produce dimensions and energy slopes which
will capably transport the sediment and water. Various combinations of channel cross-section and profile
were assessed for their capability to move the design sediment discharge. These stable dimensions and
slopes were incorporated into the typical riffle cross-section and design slope of the project.
5.5.2 Sediment Transport Analysis and Discussion
For streams with significant sand components such as Blockhouse Creek, sediment transport capacity is a
much more important analysis tool than competency. Sediment transport capacity refers to the stream's
ability to move a mass of sediment past a cross section per unit of time, .expressed in pounds/second or
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-9 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

tons/year. Sediment transport capacity can be assessed directly, using actual monitored data from
bankfull events, if a sediment transport rating curve has been developed for the project site. Since rating
curve development is extremely difficult, other empirical relationships are used to assess sediment
transport capacity. In this case, sediment capacity is calculated based on the primarily experimentally
developed Meyer-Peter Muller Equation, Toffaletti's Equation, and the Yang Equation which are options
available in HEC-RAS for transport calculation.
5.6 In-Stream Structures
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the Blockhouse Creek site. Structures such as root
wads, constructed riffles, and log vanes will be used to stabilize the newly-restored stream. Wood
structures will primarily be used on this site because that is the material observed in the existing system
and it is often generated during the channel construction process. Table 7.3 summarizes the use of in-
stream structures at the site.
Table 5.3
Proposed In-Stream Structure Types and Locations
Structure Ty{~e Location

__ __
---
Root Wad Outside bank of meander bends to provide bank protection and improve aquatic
habitat.
Vegetated Geolift To create new banks in areas where cutting a new channel is not an option.
Outside of meander bends under particularly high stress or in areas where slight
lateral migration is unacceptable.
Rock Cross Vane Downstream of floodplain constrictions to direct high velocity flow emerging
from the constriction to the center of the channel to prevent bank erosion and
provide grade control. Near the downstream end of the project to provide grade
control to prevent possible downcutting downstream of the project from migrating
into the project stream and causing bed erosion.
Constructed Riffle Through straight, steeper sections to provide grade control.
Rock or Log Vane or J-Hook. In meander bends to turn water to protect outside banks and promote scour to
maintain pools.
Angled Log Sill At the tails of riffles to slightly turn water and promote scour to maintain pools.
Rock Step Structure In steep channels to control grade and maintain step-pool system
Log Sill with Root Wads In steep channels to control grade and maintain step-pool system
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. Root wads promote bed scour underneath to
provide deep, shaded pools. Root wads will be placed throughout the Blockhouse Creek project.
Geolifts
A geolift consists of a layer of biodegradable matting back filled with soil (creating a lift) that is
stacked upon a stone toe base . A row of native, riparian, woody vegetation is laid on top of this
first soil lift and a second lift is constructed on top of the woody material _ This alternating of lift
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-10 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

and woody material continues up to the desired elevation. The mesh that makes up the matting acts
much like a traditional gabion, but is designed to break down over time and is more economical.
Unlike gabions that are filled over with topsoil to create a bank, the geolift actually holds the soil in
place between layers of matting that are set perpendicular to the bank slope making it more
effective in supporting the slope while vegetation is established. Geolifts also work to retain
moisture for live stakes or other vegetation and provide a substrate for the establishment of a root
system.
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.
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.
Boulder or Log Vane
A boulder or log vane is used to protect the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can
span one-third to one-half the bankfull channel width. Vanes are located 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. A vane structure will maintain an excavated scour
pool immediately downstream of its arm. In an effort to promote structural diversity, the proposed
restoration indicates a mixed use. of boulders and, logs to construct. vanes,.
Angled Log Sill
An angled log sill consists of a large log buried across and in the stream bed at the tail of a riffle at
a slight angle and slope to function similarly to a vane but to a lesser degree. _ This structure mimics
a fallen tree and provides beddiversity...
Rock Step Structure
A rock step structure consists of boulders placed in the channel in a U-shape constructed similarly
to a cross-vane. These structures provide grade control in steep channels, direct high velocity flows
to the center of the channel, and maintain the excavated plunge pool immediately downstream,
These structures are only used in the_step-pool. section at the lower end of UT 2.
Log Sill with Rootwads
-.Log sills consist of a footer log placed in the bed of the stream channel, perpendicular to stream
flow. The logs extend into the stream banks on both sides of the structure to prevent erosion and
bypassing of the structure. The logs are installed flush with the channel bottom upstream of the. log.
The footer log is placed to the depth of scour expected, to prevent the structure from being
undermined. Rootwads are added into both left and right banks immediately below the sill to
narrow the convergence zone, extend the pool and support the sill. Log sills provide bedform
diversity, maintain channel profile, and provide pool and cover habitat. These structures are only
used in the step-pool section at the lower end of UT 2.
FUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-11 10/04/07
____ A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

5.7 Flood modeling
A HEC-RAS model was built from the existing conditions survey to evaluate how bankfull indicators
aligned with the bankfull discharge and to evaluate sediment transport as explained in sections 3.4 and
6.4. However, proposed conditions have not been modeled at this point in project planning to determine
how the project might affect flooding. It is unknown whether further study will be required by the local
floodplain manager, but Baker will consult with that office to determine local municipal code
requirements.
According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Polk County, NC, (Panel Number
3701940004A) the project reach of Blockhouse Creek downstream of NC 1501 (Hunting Country Road)
is within a regulatory floodplain, zone A (Figure 2.3). Flood modeling is not required for impacts of less
than 5 acres in a Zone A designated area. The impact from the restoration work located in the Zone A
designated area is expected to be less than 3.5 acres. Nevertheless, Baker will use the proposed alignment
and typical sections for modeling in HEC-RAS to determine what impact the proposed design may have
on flooding as deemed necessary by the floodplain manager. No insurable structures are in the area of the
streamprofect and any change in the 100-year water surface is .expected be minimal.
5.8 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 and multi-flora rose will be removed_so as not to threaten the newly-
established native plants within the conservation easement.
5.8.1 Stream Buffer Vegetation
Bare-root trees, live stakes, and permanent seeding will be planted within designated areas of the
conservation easement (Table 6.4 and 6.5). A riparian buffer measured from the top of the banks
and having a width from 30 feet to over 50 feet, 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. Woody vegetation will be planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre. Planting of bare-
root trees and live stakes will be conducted during the first dormant season following construction.
If construction activities are completed in summer or 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 generally be
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 (WRP, 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 through meander bends
and three to five feet apart in all other areas. This will be a density of 60 to 360 stakes per 1,000
square feet along the stream banks_depending on location._ Stakes will be placed just. above and just.....
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-12 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION.

below a line defined by the bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly different
spacing.
A permanent seed mixture will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. The permanent
seed mixture will be applied to all disturbed areas outside the banks of the restored stream channel
and is intended to provide rapid growth of native herbaceous ground cover that will have high
biological habitat value. The species provided are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate
along restored stream channels, providing long-term stability.
A temporary ground cover will be established by seeding an annual grain or grass that germinates
quickly, provides a thick ground cover and dies. Temporary ground cover will be applied to all
disturbed areas of the site to prevent erosion. These areas include constructed streambanks, access
roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary ground cover 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, seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate of 45 pounds `per
acre.
The adjacent land use requires that the project be split into two areas with a slightly different
tree/shrub composition in the planting plan for each area, based on FENCE requests. The
Equestrian Area encompasses the restoration project upstream of N.C. 1501 (Hunting Country
Road) and will receive 40% trees and 60% shrubs, while the Nature Center Area encompasses
everything downstream of this road and will receive 60% trees and 40% shrubs.
- _ __
"fable 5.~4 Rooted trees, live stakes ~~r~s'1 seeding to be planted in the riparian zone of 131ockhousc Creel.
1'he species composition for t~~~o different areas is shown; with one area being upstream of I-2U and the
second area being downstream of 1-2V.
I'I,ii~€iia~~ Pl:~ri
_ _ _ __
__
Scientific name ~ Conuuon _^am~Perccnt 1'Is~it~~d b± `~kt€~r~iQ ~_, ~
lifocl<hou~e i_'rccfc up~tr~am c,f t-26 and Ul~i (40"4~ tr~c~' h(~ ~~; tiler ,E. i r,~,_,~~~,1 at ~,~,(~ ,t~;~n.,`.~~
Trees -Planted 13'x13'
Acer rubrum Red ma le 13
Fraxinus ennsylvanica Green ash 13
Ju fans nigra Black walnut 13
Lirioclenclron tzeli era Tuli o far .5
Platanus occidentalis S camore •5

Understor Trees/Shrubs- Planted 10'x10'
Alnus serrulata Ta alder 9
Calicanthus oridus Sweet Shrub 10
Corms florida Flowerin dogwood 6
Halesia carolina Carolina silverbell 10
Cercis canaclensis Redbud 7
Car inns caroliniana Ironwood 9
Asimina triloba Paw aw 9

1 1
Blockhouse Crcck downstream of I-26 and U I ' € r~€)' ~, l r~~ F°~~ ~«°'~ ~=hr
Trees -Planted 10'x10' ul ~s) E E ~*~,~ I at 680 ,t~ m,'~~ -
Acer rubrum Red ma le 4
Dios ros vir iniana Persimmon 6
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-13 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

Ju lans ni ra Black walnut 12
Liriocenclron tali fera Tuli o lar 10
Platmzus occicentalis Sycamore 10
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 6
Qccercus phellos Willow oak 6
zzereus rtzbrh Red oak 6

Understor Trees/Shrubs- Planted 13'x13'
Alnzzs serr•zelata Tag alder 6
Calicanthus floridus Sweet Shrub 6
Corms orica Flowering dogwood 5
Halesia carolina Carolina silverbell 6
Cercis canacensis Redbud d
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood 6
Asimina triloba Paw aw 5

~~'~C'~Ui~~~' ~!~.~~ „'-ft DUI' 1 1A"' ~rliC~. - I'lanlcCl ~~ `{. _3~ i~dl C~ntC~
Salix sericeu Silky willow 30
Physochrpus opulifolius Ninebark 25
Sambuczes canhcensis Elderberry 15
Corms amomum Silky Dogwood 30
Nnte: Species selection may change due to availability at the time of planting.
Table ~.~ Native Sccd 1~~1i~ f~~r the. ripanau buffer
Scientific name Common name Percent of Mixture
A rostis stoleni era Cree ing Bent rass 18
Ancropogon gerardii Big Bluestem 5
Biclens aristosa Be ars Tick 4
Carex vul inoicea Fox Sedge 5
Chamhecristh asciczclata Partrid e ea 5
Dichanthelium clhndestinum Deer Ton ue 10
Elymus vir• inicus Vir inia Wild Rye 24
Ezcpatorium perfoliatzcm Boneset 2
Hello sis helianthoides Ox Eye Sunflower/False 2
Juncus e zzsus Soft Rush 5
Monarch fistulosh Wild bergamot 3
Pol onunz enns lvanicum Penns lvania smartweed 3
Ruclbeckia hirta Black Eyed Susan 5
Schizachyrizcm sco arium Little Bluestem 5
Sae astrzcm mztans Indian Grass 8
5.8.2 On-site Invasive Species Management
Chinese privet (Ligustrztm sinense), multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and kudzu (Pzteraria montana) are nonnative, invasive species that are
found across this site in varying densities. Populations of nonnative, invasive species will be
removed using mechanical means and foliar applications of chemicals. Treated areas will be
monitored for the reoccurrence of these species and if they are found they will be treated with
foliar applications of herbicide. This process will continue through the monitoring period so
that the invasive species do not threaten the newly-planted riparian vegetation.
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 5-14 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

6.0 `PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Baker has been involved in obtaining recent approvals from the regulatory agencies for a series of stream
mitigation plans for NCEEP full-delivery projects. The stream restoration and enhancement success
criteria for the project site will follow approved success criteria presented in recent restoration and
mitigation plans developed for these full-delivery projects. These plans were based on the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines issued in Apri12003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
6.1 Stream Monitoring
Channel stability and vegetation survival will be monitored on the project site. 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.
6.1.1 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..
6.1.2 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). Cross sections will be classified
using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross sections should. fall within
the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream_type.
6.1.3 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be completed in years one, three, and five of the monitoring period. A
representative 3,000 LF segment of the restored stream will be surveyed. Measurements will -
includethalweg,.water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 6-15 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

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. Bedform observed. should be consistent.
with those observed for channels of the design stream. type.
6.1.4 Bed Material Analyses
Bulk samples will be conducted for the permanent cross sections on the project reaches. Bulk
samples will be done rather than pebble counts since this is a sand bed stream at present. During
the monitoring period, if the bulk samples show a coarsening of the bed and gravel becomes a
larger component of the bed, then a pebble count will be added above and below I-26. Sediment
collection will be conducted one year after construction and at two-year intervals thereafter, at the
time the longitudinal field surveys are performed. Sediment data will be plotted on a semi-log
graph and compared with data from previous years.......
6.1.5 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 each grade control structure along the restored
stream. 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.
6.2 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 quadrants will be installed across the
restoration site. The number of quadrants required will be based on the species/area curve method, with a
minimum of three quadrants. The size of individual quadrants 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 diameter, height,
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.
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 6-16 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

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 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. While measuring species density is the currently accepted methodology for evaluating
vegetation success on restoration projects, species density alone maybe inadequate for assessing plant
community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of
additional plant community indices to assess overall.. vegetative success.
6.3 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.
• Projects with sandy, non-cohesive soils are more prone to short-term bank erosion than cohesive soils
or soils with high gravel and cobble content.
• .Alluvial valley channels with wide floodplains are less vulnerable than confined channels.
• .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 monitoring reports. The conditions listed above and any other factors that may have necessitated
maintenance will be discussed.
6.4 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 all success criteria are met.
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 6-17 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

7.0 ...REFERENCES
Bruner, Gary W. 2002. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual. 2002. United States
Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center. Davis, CA.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2005. 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.
Hadley, J.B. and Nelson, A.E., 1971, Geologic map of the Knoxville c~iadran~le North Carolina, Tennessee,
and South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous.Geologic Investigations Map I-654, scale
1:250000.
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234-1279.
North Carolina Climate Office- CRONOS Database [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.nc-
climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/.
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program.2005. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://www.ncflooaps.com/default sw£asp.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Element Occurrence Database (Listing of State and
Federally Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina). North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. 2006, 2007. [Online WWW].
Available URL: http://149.168.1.196/nhp/county.html
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.
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.
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.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (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 Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation (NRCS). Soil Data Mart [Online
WWW]. Available URL ttp°//soildataa.nres,usda.ov/SurveY.aspx?County=NC149
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Polk County Soil Survey
[Online WWW]. Available URL: (ttp://soils.usda.~ov/survey/},
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 7-1 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Official Soil
Series Descriptions. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/
WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). WETS Table
Documentation. Water and Climate Center, Portland, Oregon. May 15, 1995. [Online WWW].
Available URL: http°//www wcc.nres.usda.~ov/climate/wets oc.tml.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina,. Polk County. 2006, 2007. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
ttp°//www.fwsov/nc-es/es/count fr~html.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern
.........United States (The Red Book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Division of Endangered Species,
Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
United_States Fish and Wildlife_Service._1995. Recovery Plan for White Irisette_(Sisyrnchium dichotomum).
Atlanta, Ga. 22pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Species Profile for Isotria medeoloides. Includes links to all
relevant documents regarding listing and de-listing of the species.
ttp://endan~ere.fws. og_v/i!_q/salq.htl
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Land Cover Data. 2002. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http; //seamless. usgs. gov/.
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 7-2 10/04/07
A UNIT OF MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION

Appendix A. Regulatory agency Correspondence

� a
Carolina Mlife Resources Coy s .
Richard 1a1. 1firrr itton,Etitivc Director
August: 4, 2006
Exit Mtrlars i
Back Engineering,
1447 South `l`"n Street, Strite 200
Charlotte, NC2tl�r
SUBJECT: FLP Stream Mitigation Prgject in Polk Coun
Bl€ael<hotrwe Creek
Cie=arr° lG r , MAIlar°sid-,
' icrleraists with the North Gir'iaiina Wildl.il l esorrr' s tl`eanti'rriw itrri (f owinission) received Yaur_ letter
dated August 4 2006 regarding the Ecosystem larrla€itatawament Progrranr prey eet carr Bloc;l;

.oa STA7~ o
~a ~~~ ct
~ a~~,,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
State Historic Preservation Uffice
Peter a Sandboclc, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lis6eth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook. Diremtor
August 34, 2006
Ifen Gilland
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, .Slate. 200
Cary, NC 27511
Re: EEP, Blockhouse Greek Wetland and Stream. Mitigation Site, Palk County, ER OG-21.91
Dear Mr, Gilland:
Thank you for your letter of August 10, 200G, concerning the above project.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites withita the project boundaries. However, the project area
has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources.
Based on the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric
or historic archaeological sites.
We recommend that a camgrehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that maybe damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects an unknown resources must be assessed. prior to the. uutiaton of construction
activities.
Two caples of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be Forwarded to us .for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
car-structian activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at ~vunv•arch.dcr.stlte.nc_us consults.lttnt, The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect any historic structures,
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of tlxe National I-listoric Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 10G codified at 36 C)?R
Part 500.
Loc>lHon Maflfng Address TelephonelFax
547 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27694617 [919}733-47631733-8653
ADMINISTRAT[aN
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Slrcet, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27ti99-4617 - gi9)733-65451715-4801
51JRVEV & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Streer, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 ( )

Thank you for your cooperation and cpnsideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 est. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbeck

DATP: 14 - November - 06
TO: )?I-1WA, NC Division
Donnie Brew
Environmental Protection.Specialist
EEP Liaison
3I0 Newborn Ave.
Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 2760I
PROJI<CT(S}; Proposed streaxnbank restoration at SloclChouse Stream, Polk.....
County; Puzzle Creek, Rutherford County, North Carolina
The Tribal Historic Preservation fJf#ice of #lae Pastern Band of Cherokee Indiazas is in
receipt of the above-referenced pro}ects data and would like to thank you. far the.......
opportunity to comment on these proposed NHPA Section I06 activities.
The projects' locations are within the abai`iginal territory of the Cherokee people. These
hreas may have cultural, archaeological, or religious signi~zcance tv the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians. Potential cultural resources are subject to damage ox destruction from
land disturbing activities requiring new ground disturbance, or vegetation manipulation.
Adverse effects to ethnographic sites, such. as traditional Native American campsites ar
burials, can reduce the interpzetative or spiritual significance of a site to Tribal and
United States culture and history. The EBCI THPQ requests any cultural resource data,
including phase I archeological reports, topographic maps, historical research, ar archives
research, forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic 1'reservatian Office far comment
also be sent to this office in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. The EBCI fiHPO
..looks forward to participating in the project review process as a consulting party as
stipulated in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. If we can be
of further service, or if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact
me_atrf828} 488-0237-~xt 2,
~~ ~ ;~~~
` ~
i ~ %
Sincly- - ~
, _.
~ Y
~~~pl~r"13~ Howe' ~.; ~ v
'/--,-/" 't'ribal Historical Preservation Specialist
____ Eastern Band of Cherokee lndians ~° ~10~{
Cc: -Andrea Spangler.. . „-~,.
.;~;. t
.~+ra~ ~a.~ -.

~ .:~-`
a~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
January 12, 2007
Micky Clemmons
Buck Engineering
787 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Re: ___ T ogan Creek, Puzzle Creek and Blockhouse Creek Stream Restorations, Jackson, Rutherford, and.
Polk Counties, ER 06-2135, ER 06-2190, and ER 06-2191...
Dear Mr. Clemmons:
Thank you for your letter of December 1, 2006, transmitting the archaeological survey reportby_
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. for the above projects.
During the course of the survey, one site was located within the project area. The report authors have
recommended that no fuxther archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We
concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic.Preservation's Regulations £or Compliance with Section_106 codified at 36 CrR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future.
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
""~`'
R~
eter Sandbeck
cc: Bobby Southerlin, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]!733-8653
RESTORATION S l5 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617.Mail Service.Center, Raleigh.NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801

Appendix B. EDR Transaction Screen Map Report

R° Environmental
Data Resources Inc
The EDR Radius Map
with GeoCheck®
Blockhouse House Creek Stream
Restoration Project- Polk County
Tryon, NC 28782
Inquiry Number: 01735539.1r
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_______________ ------ S
Map Findings Summary--------------------------------------------------- 4
Map Findings------------- ----------------------------------------. 6
Orphan Summary------------------------------------------------------- 9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum________________________ _________________ A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary_________________________ _________________ A-2
Physical SettingSSURGOSoilMap_________________________ ________________- A-5
Physical Setting Source Map______________________________ _________________ A-11
Physical Setting Source Map Findings______________________ ___________.-____-. A-12
Physical Setting Source Records Searched_______________.___ _________________- A-19
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 performed 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 ro ert of their res ective owners.
TC01735539.1 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
RESTORATION PROJECT- POLK COUNTY
TRYON, NC 28782
COORDINATES
Latitude (North): 35.201500 - 35° 12' 5.4"
Longitude (West): 82.175500 - 82° 10' 31.8"
Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 17
UTM X (Meters): 392992.3
UTM Y (Meters): 3895823.8
Elevation: 912 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 35082-62 LANDRUM, SC
Most Recent Revision: 1987
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
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_______________froposed 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
CORRACTS_________________ Corrective Action Report
RCRA-TSDF_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-LQG_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
TC01735539.1 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RCRA-SQG______________ ____ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
ERNS____________________ ____Ernergency Response Notification System
HMIRS___________________ ____Hazardnus Materials Information Reporting System
US ENG CONTROLS_____ ___ Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL______ ___.Sltes with Institutional Controls
DOD_____________________ ____Departrnent of Defense Sites
FUDS____________________ ____Fnrmerly Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS______ ____ AListing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT_______________ ____ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD_____________________ ____Recnrds Of Decision
UMTRA__________________ ____Uranlum Mill Tailings Sites
ODI______________________ ____open Dump Inventory
TRIS_____________________ ____Tnxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA____________________ ____Tnxic Substances Control Act
FTTS____________________ ____ FIFRA/TSCATrackingSystem-FIFRA(Federallnsecticide,Fungicide,&
Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
SSTS_____________ ___________ Section 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS_______________ __________.lntegrated Compliance Information System
PADS_____________ __________.POB Activity Database System
MLTS_____________ ___________Materlal Licensing Tracking System
MINES____________ ___________Mlnes Master Index File
FINDS____________ ___________ Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
RAATS___________ ___________ RCRAAdministrativeActionTrackingSystem
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
NC SHWS______________ _____ Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
SC SHWS______________ _____.Slte Assessment Section Project List
NC HSDS______________ ______Hazardnus Substance Disposal Site
SC GWCI_______________ _____ Groundwater Contamination Inventory
NC SWF/LF____________ ______Llst of Solid Waste Facilities
SC SWF/LF____________ ______Perrnitted Landfills List
NC OLI_________________ _____ Old Landfill Inventory
SC LUST_______________ _____ Leaking Underground Storage Tank List
NC LUST TRUST_______ _____ State Trust Fund Database
NC UST________________ ______Petrnleum Underground Storage Tank Database
SC UST ______________________Oomprehensive Underground Storage Tanks
NC AST__________________ ___.RST Database
SC AST__________________ ____Aboveground Storage Tank List
SC Spills________________ ____ Spill List
NC INST CONTROL_____ ____. No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
SC AUL_________________ ____. Land Use Controls
NC VCP_________________ ____. Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
SC VCP_________________ _____Vnluntary Cleanup Sites
NC DRYCLEANERS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Drycleaning Sites
SC DRYCLEANERS_____ ____ DrycleanerDatabase
NC BROWNFIELDS_____ ____.Brownfields Projects Inventory
SC BROWNFIELDS_____ _____Brownfields Sites Listing
NC 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
TC01735539.1 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified.
Elevations have been determined from the USGS 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. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
NC IMD: Incident Management Database.
A review of the NC IMD list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/01/2006 has revealed that there is 1 NC
IMD site within approximately 1 mile of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist /Dir Map ID Page
SANDY PLAINS TEXACO 6213 SOUTH HIGHWAY 9 1/2 - 1 WSW 1 6
NC LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incidents Management Database contains an inventory
of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the Department of Environment, &
Natural Resources' Incidents by Address.
A review of the NC LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 06/02/2006 has revealed that there is 1
NC LUST site within approximately 1 mile of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist /Dir Map ID Page
SANDY PLAINS TEXACO 6213 SOUTH HIGHWAY 9 1/2 - 1 WSW 1
Incident Phase: Closed Out
TC01735539.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
Site Name
CARTRETTE FIELD
LITTLE MOUNTAIN LANDFILL
POLK COUNTY MSW LANDFILL
POLK COUNTY C&D LANDFILL
TRYON TOWN OF
ELLIS M. PINCHER & VMH, INC.
GREENVILLE WOOD WASTE RECYCLING CENTER WOOD GRINDI
COLUMBUS CHEVRON-550 GAL. UST
DUKE POWER OPNS CTR-TRYON
COLUMBUS BP SERVICE
DIAMOND B KWIK SHOPS INC
FOWLERS GROCERY
SOUTHERN GROCERY
FAIRVIEW AIRPORT
RONNIES CITGO
AMOCO #961
RICHARD THOMPSON RESIDENCE
DILLS GROCERY
WEST STATE LINE GULF SERVICE
TRYON LUMBER CO
TLC CHEVROLET INC
FAIRVIEW AIRPORT
SPINX 165
SANDY PLAINS TEXACO 10283
RED FOX COUNTRY CLUB
SOUTHERN MERCERIZ-DIV OF DI
DIXIE YARNS FACILITY (FORMER)
LITTLE MOUNTAIN LDFL
TRYON PLANT WWTP
Database(s)
NC SHWS
NC SHWS, NC VCP
NC SWF/LF
NC SWF/LF
NC SWF/LF
NC SWF/LF
SC SWF/LF
NC LUST, NC IMD
NC LUST, NC IMD
NC LUST, NC IMD
FINDS, SC LUST
FINDS, SC LUST
FINDS, SC LUST
FINDS, SC LUST
SC LUST, SC UST
NC LUST TRUST
NC LUST TRUST
SC UST
SC UST
SC UST
SC UST
SC UST
SC UST
NC UST
NC UST
RCRA-SOG, FINDS
NC IMD
NC OLI
NC NPDES
TC01735539.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

OVERVIEW MAP - 01735539.1 r
\ i
~~ ~ ~
~, ~.
i `~~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~
\ ~ ~,
G
a F _ ~ ~ ~ i~
,~ ; ,
~\ I ~ O j~~
_ 1 ~ ~ / `~'
i
j ~ - l~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ l
/ , \
C ~' ~ (/
~~ i
-~ -~.~ ~~ i, ~' o
- \~ ~' ~ ~ d
~ 'J \
_- ~
~~~ ~~~~~ .. I ~ /
< ~
~~,
~.
_,\
1 -~
i '- \ . \
i
~ ~ O
- ,,, ~ ~,
,1
,, ~
~1 _
~.,
_..., ,-_
~ \ r ~ ~ y -
i
,_- ( 1 J r
`j ~~/ ~ .~
__
_ _ ~ ~ ~ __,
a --
\~ f ti ,~ 1
~ r E IF ~ ~
P \
~ r
~ `
~ Target Property I --
~ Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
~~~
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance

•
Sites at elevations lower than
/V Disposal Sites
County Boundary
the target property
'~
Oil & Gas pipelines
t Manufactured Gas Plants
National Wetland Inventory
National Priority List Sites ~ State Wetlands
Landfill Sites
L ~i~ Dept. Defense Sites
SITE NAME: Blockhouse House Creek Stream CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Restoration Project- Polk County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Tryo n NC 28782 INQUIRY #: 01735539.1 r
LAT/LONG: 35.2015 / 82.1755 DATE: August 15, 2006
Copyritlht ~.~ 2006 El1R,Ina r-2006 Tela Atlas Ral. 07!2005,

DETAIL MAP - 01735539.1 r
9~
~~s
a,
~~
G
~J/

•~
Target Property y ii~v ~,.. .. ......__
~ Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
~
~
Indian Reservations BIA ! Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than .
~
~p~ Disposal Sites
Oil & Gas pipelines
the target property National Wetland Inventory
L Manufactured Gas Plants ~~ State Wetlands
r Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
SITE NAME: Blockhouse House Creek Stream CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Restoration Project- Polk County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Tryon NC 28782 INQUIRY #: 01735539.1r
LAT/LONG: 35.2015 / 82.1755 DATE: August 15, 2006
Copyright ~~ 2006 EDR, Ina <s 2006 Tele Atlas Rel. 07/2005.

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 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed NPL 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
Delisted NPL 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
NPL RECOVERY 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CERCLIS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
CERC-NFRAP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
CORRACTS 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
RCRA TSD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ERNS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
HMIRS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US ENG CONTROLS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
US INST CONTROL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
DOD 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
FUDS 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
US BROWNFIELDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
CONSENT 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROD 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
UMTRA 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ODI 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
TRIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TSCA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
FTTS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
SSTS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ICIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
PADS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
MLTS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
MINES 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FINDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RAATS 0.500 0 0 0 N R N R 0
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
NC State Haz. Waste 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC State Haz. Waste 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC HSDS 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC IMD 1.000 0 0 0 1 NR 1
SC GWCI 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC State Landfill 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
SC State Landfill 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NC OLI 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NC LUST 1.000 0 0 0 1 NR 1
SC LUST 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NC LUST TRUST 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NC UST 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
SC UST 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NC AST 0.750 0 0 0 0 NR 0
TC01735539.1 r Page 4

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
SC AST
SC Spills
NC INST CONTROL
SC AUL
NC VCP
SC VCP
NC DRYCLEANERS
SC DRYCLEANERS
NC BROWNFIELDS
SC BROWNFIELDS
NC NPDES
Search
Target Distance
Property (Miles)
0.750
0.500
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.750
0.750
1.000
1.000
0.500
Total
< 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
INDIAN RESERV 1.500
INDIAN LUST 1.000
INDIAN UST 0.750
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.500
EDR Historical Auto Stations 0.750
EDR Historical Cleaners 0.750
NOTES:
TP =Target Property
NR =Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC01735539.1 r Page 5

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
1 SANDY PLAINS TEXACO NC LUST S1 0 57641 60
WSW 6213 SOUTH HIGHWAY 9 NC IMD NIA
1/2-1 TRYON, NC 28782
3728 ft.
Relative: LUST:
Higher Facility ID: 0-019686
Incident Number: 5071 UST Number: AS-275
Actual: LaULong: 351444 820512 LaULong Decimal: 0 0
996 ft. Testlat: Not reported
Regional Officer Project Mgr: FCH
Region: Asheville
Company: PETROLEUM WORLD, INC
Contact Person: DEBBIE SAILORS
Telephone: Not reported
RP Address: Not reported
RP City,St,Zip: Not reported
RP County: Not reported
Comm /Non-comm UST Site: Commercial
Risk Classification: H
Risk Class Based On Review: H
Corrective Action Plan Type: Not reported
Level Of Soil Cleanup Achieved:Not reported
Tank Regulated Status: R
Contamination Type: SL
Source Type: Leak-underground Product Type: Petroleum
Date Reported: 6/6/1989 Date Occur: Not reported
NOV Issue Date: Not reported NORR Issue Date: Not reported
Site Priority: Not reported Phase Of LSA Req:Not reported
Site Risk Reason: Not reported Land Use: Not reported
Closure Request: Not reported # Of Supply Wells: Not reported
Close Out: 7/11/1990
MTBE: Not reported MTBE1: Unknown
Flag: No FIag1: No
Release Code: 0 LUR Filed: Not reported
GPS Confirmed: Not reported Cleanup: 7/11/1990
Current Status: File Located in Archives RBCA GW: Not reported
PETOPT: Not reported RPL: No
CD Num: 48 Reel Num: 0
RPOW: No RPOP: No
Error Flag: 0
Error Code: Not reported Error Type: Not reported
Submitted: 6/6/1989 Valid: No
Description: TWO SSOIL BORINGS, LOCATED AT E ITHER END OF PREMIUM TANK ARE CONTAMINATED BY
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.
Ownership: Private
Operation Type: Public Service Facility Type: 3
Location: Facility Site Priority: Not reported
Priority Update: Not reported PIRF/Min Soil: Pirf
Wells Affected: No Wells Affected #: 0
Samples Taken: Not reported Samples Include: Not reported
5 Min Quad: R81 a 7.5 Min Quad: Not reported
Comments: CLOSED 7/11/90
Last Modified: 3/25/1999
Incident Phase: Closed Out
NOV Issued: Not reported
NORR Issued: Not reported
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
TC01735539.1 r Page 6

Map ID ~ MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
SANDY PLAINS TEXACO (Co
Corrective Action Planned
SOC Sighned:
Reclassification Report:
RS Designation:
Closure Request Date:
Close-out Report:
~tinued) S105764160
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
7/11 /1990
IMD:
Facility ID: 5071
Region: ASH
Date Occurred: Not reported
Submit Date: 6/6/1989
GW Contam: No
Soil Contam: Yes
Incident Desc: TWO SSOIL BORINGS, LOCATED AT EITHER END OF PREMIUM TANK ARE CONTAMINATED BY
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.
Operator: DEBBIE SAILORS
Contact Phone: Not reported
Owner Company: PETROLEUM WORLD, INC
Operator Address:Not reported
Operator City: Not reported
Oper City,St,Zip: Not reported
Ownership: Private
Operation: Public Service
Material: GASOLINE
Qty Lost 1: Not reported
Qty Recovered 1: NONE
Source: Leak-underground
Type: Gasoline/diesel
Location: Facility
Setting: Rural
Risk Site: H
Site Priority: Not reported
Priority Code: Not reported
Priority Update: Not reported
Dem Contact: FCH
Wells Affected: No
Num Affected: 0
Wells Contam: Not reported
Sampled By: Not reported
Samples Include: Not reported
7.5 Min Quad: Not reported
5 Min Quad: Not reported
Latitude: 35.24555555
Long itud e: -82.08666666
Latitude Number: 351444
Longitude Number: 820512
Latitude Decimal: 35.2455555555556
Longitude Decimal: 82.0866666666667
GPS: NOD
Agency: DWM
Facility ID: 5071
Last Modified: 3/25/1999
Incident Phase: Closed Out
NOV Issued: Not reported
NORR Issued: Not reported
TC01735539.1 r Page 7

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.)
Elevation Site
SANDY PLAINS TEXACO (Continued)
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
SOC Sighned: Not reported
Reclassification Report: Not reported
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: 7/11/1990
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
S105764160
TC01735539.1 r Page 8

ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID Site Name
COLUMBUS 5105892929 COLUMBUS CHEVRON-550 GAL. UST
COLUMBUS S105892874 DUKE POWER OPNS CTR-TRYON
COLUMBUS S105163963 POLK COUNTY MSW LANDFILL
COLUMBUS S105805030 POLK COUNTY C&D LANDFILL
COLUMBUS S105194126 CARTRETTE FIELD
COLUMBUS S105218948 AMOCO #961
COLUMBUS 5105218260 RICHARD THOMPSON RESIDENCE
COLUMBUS S105892961 COLUMBUS BP SERVICE
LANDRUM 1007258960 DIAMOND B KWIK SHOPS INC
LANDRUM 0001539870 DILLS GROCERY
LANDRUM 0001542158 WEST STATE LINE GULF SERVICE
LANDRUM 0003526109 TRYON LUMBER CO
LANDRUM 0003525972 TLC CHEVROLET INC
LANDRUM 1007226211 FOWLERS GROCERY
LANDRUM 1007242434 SOUTHERN GROCERY
LANDRUM 0004019536 FAIRVIEW AIRPORT
LANDRUM 1007247435 FAIRVIEW AIRPORT
LANDRUM 0003524733 RONNIES CITGO
LANDRUM 0003836627 SPINX 165
TRYON 0003007975 SANDY PLAINS TEXACO 10283
TRYON S103240289 TRYON TOWN OF
TRYON S106864133 LITTLE MOUNTAIN LDFL
TRYON S103554447 LITTLE MOUNTAIN LANDFILL
TRYON 1004548744 SOUTHERN MERCERIZ-DIV OF DI
TRYON 5105043265 DIXIE YARNS FACILITY (FORMER)
TRYON S106021252 ELLIS M. PINCHER 8 VMH, INC.
TRYON S106859898 GREENVILLE WOOD WASTE RECYCLING CENTER
WOOD GRINDI
TRYON ~ S107780737 TRYON PLANT WWTP
TYON 0001197866 RED FOX COUNTRY CLUB
Site Address
Zip Database(s)
I-26 ! 108) 401 W. MILLS ST. 28722 NC LUST, NC IMD
730 HWY 108 E. 28722 NC LUST, NC IMD
NC 9 28722 NC SWF/LF
HWY 9 NORTH 28722 NC SWF/LF
CHADBOURN 28722 NC SHWS
NC HIGHWAY 108 / I-25 28722 NC LUST TRUST
900 HUNTING COUNTRY 28722 NC LUST TRUST
402 W. MILLS ST (108 / I-26) 28722 NC LUST, NC IMD
1880 HWY 14 EAST 29356 FINDS, SC LUST
HWY 176 29356 SC UST
HWY 176 29356 SC UST
HWY 176 WEST 29356 SC UST
HWY 176S 29356 SC UST
3601 HWY 414 29356 FINDS, SC LUST
3708 HWY 414 29356 FINDS, SC LUST
BET FRONTAGE RD & 126 29356 SC UST
BET FRONTAGE RD & 126 29356 FINDS, SC LUST
SC HWY 176 29356 SC LUST, SC UST
5598 N HWY 14 29356 SC UST
RT. 1 28782 NC UST
SR 1504 28782 NC SWF/LF
SR 1522 -LITTLE MT RD 28782 NC OLI
(SR 1522) LITTLE MNT RD 28782 NC SHWS, NC VCP
HIGHWAY 176 SOUTH 28782 RCRA-SOG, FINDS
HIGHWAY 176 28782 NC IMD
PO BOX 1060 28782 NC SWF/LF
P.O. BOX 1060 28782 SC SWF/LF
NC HWY 108 NCSR 1509 28782 NC NPDES
RT. 1 28782 NC UST
TC01735539.1 r Page 9

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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/05/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2006
Number of Days to Update: 17
NPL Site Boundaries
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 08/02/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/30/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Sources:
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 1
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 3
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 4
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 5
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 10
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
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
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
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/05/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/22/2006
Number of Days to Update: 17
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 08/02/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/30/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC01735539.1 r Page GR-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
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/23/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
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
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/22/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/18/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
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: 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
TC01735539.1 r 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 (CESOGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous
waste per month. Small quantity generators (SOGs) generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per
month. Large quantity generators (LOGS) 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: 05/3012006
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: 0711 9/2 00 6
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: 03/27/2006
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
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
TC01735539.1r 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
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/06/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
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
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/17/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
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
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/12/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/11/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
CONSENT: Superfund (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
ROD: Records Of Decision
Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) 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
TC01735539.1r 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: 05/30/2006 Last EDR Contact: 06/19/2006
Number of Days to Update: 34 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/18/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC01735539.1r Page GR-5

_.L
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
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.
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
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
TC01735539.1 r 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 Source: EPA
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/03/1995 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/0711 9 9 5 Last EDR Contact: 06105/2006
Number of Days to Update: 35 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 (LQG)
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
ATE 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
NC 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 Superfund) 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
SC SHWS: Site Assessment Section Project List
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 Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 04/25/2006 Source: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/19/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/31/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/10/2006
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
TC01735539.1r Page GR-7

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
NC HSDS: Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Locations of uncontrolled and unregulated h
List as well as those on the state priority list.
Date of Government Version: 06/21/1995
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/10/1997
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/02/1997
Number of Days to Update: 53
azardous waste sites. The file includes sites on the National Priority
Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/31/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/28/2006
Data Release Frequency: Biennially
NC IMD: Incident Management Database
Groundwater and/or 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
SC GWCI: Groundwater Contamination Inventory
An inventory of all groundwater contamination cases in the state.
Date of Government Version: 07/01/2005 Source: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/27/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/22/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2006
Number of Days to Update: 23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
NC SWF/LF: 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
SC SWF/LF: Permitted Landfills List
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: 07/11/2006 Source: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/13/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/09/2006 Source: Department of Health and Environmental Control, GIS Section
Number of Days to Update: 27 Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/10/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NC OLI: Old Landfill Inventory
Old landfill inventory location information.
sites).
Date of Government Version: 04/03/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/09/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006
Number of Days to Update: 15
(Does not include no further action sites and other agency lead
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC01735539.1 r Page GR-8

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
NC LUST: Regional UST Database
This database contains information obtained from the Regional Offices. It provides a more detailed explanation
of current and historic activity for individual sites, 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
SC LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank List
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground
storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 06/28/2006 Source: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/29/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/09/2006 Last EDR Contact: 05/23/2006
Number of Days to Update: 41 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
NC LUST TRUST: State Trust Fund Database
This database contains information about
incurred while remediating Leaking USTs
Date of Government Version: 05/04/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/09/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006
Number of Days to Update: 15
claims against the State Trust Funds for reimbursements for expenses
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/09/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/06/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
NC UST: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST'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 Government 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
SC UST: Comprehensive Underground Storage Tanks
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST'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 Government Version: 06/28/2006 Source: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/29/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/04/2006 Last EDR Contact: 05/23/2006
Number of Days to Update: 36 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
NC 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
TC01735539.1r Page GR-9

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SC AST: Aboveground Storage Tank List
Registered Aboveground Storage Tanks.
Date of Government Version: 03/25/2004
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/04/2004
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/23/2004
Number of Days to Update: 50
SC SPILLS: Spill List
Source: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/10/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/25/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Government Version: 07/25/2006 Source: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/26/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/09/2006 Last EDR Contact: 06/26/2006
Number of Days to Update: 14 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/25/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NC 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
SC AUL: Land Use Controls
The term Land Use Controls or "LUCs" encompass institutional controls, such as those involved in real estate interests,
governmental permitting, zoning, public advisories, deed notices, and other legal restrictions. The term also
includes restrictions on access, whether achieved by means of engineered barriers (e.g., fence or concrete pad)
or by human means (e.g., the presence of security guards). Additionally, the term includes both affirmative
measures to achieve the desired restrictions (e.g., night lighting of an area) and prohibitive directives (e.g.,
restrictions on certain types of wells for the duration of the corrective action). Considered altogether, the
LUCs for a facility will provide a tool for how the property should be used in order to maintain the level of
protectiveness that one or more corrective actions were designed to achieve.
Date of Government Version: 07/12/2005 Source: Department of Health & Environmental Control
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/13/2005 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/05/2005 Last EDR Contact: 07/10/2006
Number of Days to Update: 23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NC VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Date of Government Version: 04/11/2006 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
SC VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Sites
Date of Government Version: 09/14/2005 Source: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/16/2005 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/28/2005 Last EDR Contact: 07/10/2006
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NC DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaning Sites
Potential and known drycleaning sites, active and abandoned, that the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program has
knowledge of and entered into this database.
TC01735539.1r Page GR-10

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 04/04/2006 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/14/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/19/2006
Number of Days to Update: 40 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
SC DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaner Database
The Drycleaning Facility Restoration Trust
registered drycleaning sites.
Date of Government Version: 03/01/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/06/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/20/2006
Number of Days to Update: 14
Fund database is used to access, prioritze and cleanup contaminatec
Source: Department of Health & Environmental Control
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/19/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/28/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NC 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 liabitlty 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
SC BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Sites Listing
The Brownfields component of the Voluntary Cleanup Program allows anon-responsible party to acquire a contaminated
property with State Superfund liability protection for existing contamination by agreeing to perform an environmental
assessment and/or remediation.
Date of Government Version: 07/12/2005 Source: Department of Health & Environmental Control
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/13/2005 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/05/2005 Last EDR Contact: 07/10/2006
Number of Days to Update: 23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NC NPDES: NPDES Facility Location Listing
General information regarding NPDES(Na
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.
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
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/06/2006
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land.
TC01735539.1 r Page GR-11

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
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 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: 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
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 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
Source: EPA Region 6
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
Source: EPA Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
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 R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
TC01735539.1r Page GR-12

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
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 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
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
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/21/2006
Data Release Frequency: Varies
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/,4
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
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.
TC01735539.1r Page GR-13

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
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
RI MANIFEST: Manifest information
Hazardous waste manifest information
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/09/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/24/2006
Number of Days to Update: 15
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
Source: Department of Environmental Management
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06119/2006
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/18/2006
Data Release Frequency: Annually
TC01735539.1 r Page GR-14

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Source: Department of Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2006 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/0212006 Last EDR Contact: 07/25/2006
Number of Days to Update: 46 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]
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]
TC01735539.1r Page GR-15

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
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.
TC01735539.1r Page GR-16

GEOCHECKv- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
BLOCKHOUSE HOUSE CREEK STREAM
RESTORATION PROJECT- POLK COUNTY
TRYON, NC 28782
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Target Property Map:
Most Recent Revision:
35.20150 - 35° 12' S.4"
82.1755 - 82° 10' 31.8"
Zone 17
392992.3
3895823.8
912 ft. above sea level
35082-B2 LANDRUM, SC
1987
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.
TC01735539.1 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).
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
assist the environmental professional informing 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 SSE
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
c
0
.~
W
W O O O O N ~ ~ b N
N
j W A A W ~ l0 O ? A T W O O
00 00 O N N ~ N
- i!1_ N .
~ 01 T
rvon:n
TP
0
b
> ~ °~° m
_~
W
West
b J
b ,p (O {O N W N O
O V N V W W O O V W
W W .~ p.
b
East
TP
p 1/2 1 Miles
Target Property Elevation: 912 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.
TC01735539.1 r Page A-2

GEOCHECK't' -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 Property County
POLK, NC
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property:
Additional Panels in search area:
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
NWI Quad at Target Property
LANDRUM
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 informing 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
TC01735539.1 r Page A-3

GEOCHECFC° -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: Metamorphic Rocks
System: Mississippian
Series: migmatite
Code: mm3 (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).
TC01735539.1 r Page A-4

SSURGO SOIL MAP - 01735539.1 r
2
2
3
,.~
2
~~ Target Property
;'~/ SSURGO Soil
/~,/ Water
SITE NAME: Blockhouse House Creek Stream CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Restoration Project- Polk County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Tryon NC 28782 INQUIRY #: 01735539.1r
LAT/LONG: 35.2015 / 82.1755 DATE: August 15, 2006
Copyright ~~ 2006 EDR, Ina «~ 2006 Tele Atlas Rel. 07!2005.

GEOCHECI(~~ -PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
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. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service SSURGO data.
Soil Map ID: 1
Soil Component Name: PACOLET
Soil Surface Texture: sandy clay 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 has not been ranked with a hydric criteria.
Corrosion Potential -Uncoated Steel: HIGH
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 5 inches sandy clay loam Silt-Clay COARSE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.50
Materials (more SOILS, Sands, Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Sands with fines,
passing No. Clayey sand.
200), Silty
Soils.
2 5 inches 29 inches sandy clay Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.00
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Clayey 50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
3 29 inches 37 inches clay loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty, or 50%), Lean Clay
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
TC01735539.1 r Page A-6

I
GEOCHECK"~ -PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
4 37 inches 65 inches sandy loam Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Sands with fines,
passing No. Clayey sand.
200), Silty, or COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey Gravel SOILS, Sands,
and Sand. Sands with fines,
Silt Sand.
Soil Map ID: 2
Soil Component Name: PACOLET
Soil Surface Texture: sandy clay 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 has not been ranked with a hydric criteria.
Corrosion Potential -Uncoated Steel: HIGH
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability
Rate (in/hr) Soil Reaction
(pH)
1 0 inches 5 inches sandy clay loam Silt-Clay COARSE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.50
Materials (more SOILS, Sands, Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Sands with fines,
passing No. Clayey sand.
200), Silty
Soils.
TC01735539.1 r Page A-7

GEOCHECFN -PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
2 5 inches 29 inches sandy clay Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.00
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Clayey 50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
3 29 inches 37 inches clay loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty, or 50%), Lean Clay
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
4 37 inches 65 inches sandy loam Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Sands with fines,
passing No. Clayey sand.
200), Silty, or COARSE-GRAINED
Clayey Gravel SOILS, Sands,
and Sand. Sands with fines,
Silt Sand.
Soil Map ID: 3
Soil Component Name: CECIL
Soil Surface Texture: sandy clay 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 has not been ranked with a hydric criteria.
Corrosion Potential -Uncoated Steel: HIGH
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
TC01735539.1 r Page A-8

GEOCHECK'' -PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 6 inches sandy clay loam Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.50
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty 50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
2 6 inches 58 inches clay 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), Silty more), Fat Clay.
Soils.
3 58 inches 65 inches variable Not reported Not reported Max: 0.00 Max: 0.00
Min: 0.00 Min: 0.00
Soil Map ID: 4
Soil Component Name: CHEWACLA
Soil Surface Texture: loam
Hydrologic Group: Class C -Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly. Soils commonly have a layer with low hydraulic
conductivity, wet state high in profile, etc. Depth to water table is
1 to 3 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil has not been ranked with a hydric criteria.
Corrosion Potential -Uncoated Steel: HIGH
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 7 inches loam Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.50
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty 50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
TC01735539.1 r Page A-9

GEOCHEC " -PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
2 7 inches 21 inches sandy clay loam Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.50
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit less than
200), Silty 50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
3 21 inches 65 inches silt loam Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 7.80
Materials (more SOILS, Silts and Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Clays (liquid
passing No. limit 50% or
200), Silty more), Fat Clay.
Soils.
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.
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
2 USGS2298718 1/2 - 1 Mile SE
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
3 NC0175400 112 - 1 Mile NNW
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
TC01735539.1 r Page A-10

GEOCHECF~~`~ -PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARI(
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
1 NC10006875 1/4 - 1/2 Mile NW
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE ELEMENT OCCURRENCES
ID Class
N 050006741 Invertebrate
N 050012850 Invertebrate
TC01735539.1 r Page A-11

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 01735539.1 r
1 ~ ~
_ --- t
~-~ ~ ~_~ ~ ~ ~ , o'~ ~ 1J
f `\~
~ - ~~ ~~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ it i
i
~ ~ ~ ~
\~-
` ~~ ^\ ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~~
~1
\ ~~ J ~ ~ ~
_-
~-~ ~ ~- ~'~ ~ ~ , / - --~ , ---- , A ~ ~~~\ V j /
/ ~~ 1 _ %
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~~ ~
~'~
~ ~ _~ ~ ~
~_ ,_, ~~ V ~~ / ~_~,,
/' I W
1 ~ .
\ -
- ~
~. ~ ~ / j ~~
,_ ~ J, _,
%~ ~ I
-l~ ,- I __, ~ I
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~
_ ,_,
~-
~.
/~ ~ ~ -~'
`--
--
\ `'\ _~
~_
~~- __
/ NC
~ ~ ~~
~~-- - ~ \ ~
~~ ~ ~ -- ~ i ,. -~ ~r
~.
_- - ~ .-
~ _ ~ ~~-
~ ~~ ~~ i ~ ~./ -~~_.
~.
;< ~ ~~
County Boundary ~ ~~a ~~~ -_ __~ ~~
/\/ Major Roads
,/~,/ Contour Lines ~ Groundwater Flow Direction ~ Wildlife Areas
OO Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater c I Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location ~ Natural Areas
® Water Wells c v Groundwater Flow Varies at Location ~,~ Rare & Endangered Species
© Public Water Supply Wells
~ Cluster of Multiple Icons
SITE NAME: Blockhouse House Creek Stream CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Restoration Project- Polk County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Tryo n N C 28782 INQUIRY #: 01735539. i t
LAT/LONG: 35.2015 / 82.1755 DATE: August 15, 2006
Convriaht ~.~ 2006 EDR, Ina ~? 2006 Tele Atlas Ral. 07/2005.

GEOCHECK"~'-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Database EDR ID Number
1
NW NC WELLS NC10006875
1/4 -1/2 Mile
Higher
X coord: -82.180656
Y coord: 35.206818
Pwsid: 0175400 Systemname: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Pwstype: TransientNonCommunity Locationci: COLUMBUS
County: Polk Sourcecode: W01
Watertype: Ground Sourcename: WELL #1
Latitude: 351224.545 Longitude: 821050.360
Availabili: Permanent Depthft: Not Reported
Welltype: Not Reported Owner: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Lat dec: 35.2068180555556
Long dec: -82.1806555555556
2
SE
1/2 -1 Mile
Lower
FED USGS USGS2298718
Agency cd: USGS Site no: 351147082100501
Site name: PO-10
Latitude: 351147
Longitude: 0821005 Dec lat: 35.1965038
Dec Ion: -82.1678904 Coor meth: M
Coor accr: S Latlong datum: NAD27
Dec latlong datum: NAD83 District: 37
State: 37 County: 149
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: FELSIC GNEISS
Well depth: 196.0 Hole depth: Not Reported
Source of depth data: reporting agency (generally USG9~roject 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 d ate: 1952-00-00 Ground water data end date: 1952-00-00
Ground water data count: 1
TC01735539.1 r Page A-12

GEOCHECK«~-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 1
Feet below Feet to
Date Surface Sealevel
1952 85
3
NNW
1/2 -1 Mile
Higher
FRDS PWS NC0175400
PWS ID: NC0175400 PWS Status: Active
Date Initiated: 7706 Date DeactivatediJot Reported
PWS Name: MORGAN CHAPEL
COLUMBUS, NC 28722
Addressee /Facility: System Owner/Responsible Party
PASTOR
RT 2
COLUMBUS, NC 28722
Addressee /Facility: System Owner/Responsible Party
MORGAN CHAPPEL CH
RT 2
COLUMBUS, NC 28722
Facility Latitude: 35 12 40 Facility Longitude082 10 50
City Served: COLUMBUS
Treatment Class: Untreated Population: 00000075
PWS currently has or had major violation(s) or enforcement: Yes
Violations information not reported.
ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION:
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-06-01 - 2002-06-30
Violation ID: 0206375
Enforcement Date: 2003-02-28
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-06-01 - 2002-06-30
Violation ID: 0206409
Enforcement Date: 2002-06-28
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-06-01 - 2002-06-30
Violation ID: 0206409
Enforcement Date: 2002-06-28
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0304078
Enf. Action: State Compliance Achieved
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0215288
Enf. Action: State Public Notif Requested
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0215289
Enf. Action: State Formal NOV Issued
TC01735539.1 r Page A-13

GEOCHECK~'~-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION:
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-07-01 - 2002-07-31
Violation ID: 0206409
Enforcement Date: 2002-07-15
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-07-01 - 2002-07-31
Violation ID: 0206409
Enforcement Date: 2002-07-15
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-07-01 - 2002-07-31
Violation ID: 0206409
Enforcement Date: 2003-02-28
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-06-01 - 2002-06-30
Violation ID: 0206605
Enforcement Date: 2003-02-28
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-06-01 - 2002-06-30
Violation ID: 0206639
Enforcement Date: 2002-06-28
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-06-01 - 2002-06-30
Violation ID: 0206639
Enforcement Date: 2002-06-28
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-07-01 - 2002-07-31
Violation ID: 0206639
Enforcement Date: 2002-07-15
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-07-01 - 2002-07-31
Violation ID: 0206639
Enforcement Date: 2002-07-15
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 2002-07-01 - 2002-07-31
Violation ID: 0206639
Enforcement Date: 2003-02-28
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0215372
Enf. Action: State Public Notif Requested
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0215373
Enf. Action: State Formal NOV Issued
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0304078
Enf. Action: State Compliance Achieved
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0304094
Enf. Action: State Compliance Achieved
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0215745
Enf. Action: State Public Notif Requested
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0215746
Enf. Action: State Formal NOV Issued
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0215829
Enf. Action: State Public Notif Requested
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0215830
Enf. Action: State Formal NOV Issued
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: 0304094
Enf. Action: State Compliance Achieved
TC01735539.1 r Page A-14

GEOCHECK~~~-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION:
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 6/1/2002 0:00:00 - 6/30/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 637502
Enforcement Date: 2/28/2003 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 6/1/2002 0:00:00 - 6/30/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 637502
Enforcement Date: 2/28/2003 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 6/1/2002 0:00:00 - 6/30/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 637502
Enforcement Date: 6/28/2002 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 6/1/2002 0:00:00 - 6/30/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 637502
Enforcement Date: 6/28/2002 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 6/1/2002 0:00:00 - 6/30/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 637502
Enforcement Date: 6/28/2002 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 6/1 /2002 0:00:00 - 6/30/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 637502
Enforcement Date: 6/28/2002 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 7/1/2002 0:00:00 - 7/31/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 640902
Enforcement Date: 2/28/2003 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 7/1/2002 0:00:00 - 7/31/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 640902
Enforcement Date: 2/28/2003 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 7/1/2002 0:00:00 - 7/31/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 640902
Enforcement Date: 7/15/2002 0:00:00
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Compliance Achieved
Analytical Value: Not Reported
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Compliance Achieved
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Formal NOV Issued
Analytical Value: Not Reported
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Formal NOV Issued
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Public Notif Requested
Analytical Value: Not Reported
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Public Notif Requested
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Compliance Achieved
Analytical Value: Not Reported
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Compliance Achieved
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Formal NOV Issued
TC01735539.1 r Page A-15

GEOCHECK«~-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION:
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 7/1/2002 0:00:00 - 7/31/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 640902
Enforcement Date: 7/15/2002 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 7/1/2002 0:00:00 - 7/31/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 640902
Enforcement Date: 7/15/2002 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: MCL, Monthly (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 7/1/2002 0:00:00 - 7/31/2002 0:00:00
Violation ID: 640902
Enforcement Date: 7/15/2002 0:00:00
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: Monitoring, Routine Major (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 1999-04-01 - 1999-06-30
Violation ID: 9909490
Enforcement Date: 1999-OS-12
System Name: MORGAN CHAPEL BAPT CHURCH
Violation Type: Monitoring, Routine Major (TCR)
Contaminant: COLIFORM (TCR)
Compliance Period: 1999-04-01 - 1999-06-30
Violation ID: 9909490
Enforcement Date: 1999-08-12
Analytical Value: Not Reported
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Formal NOV Issued
Analytical Value: 0
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Public Notif Requested
Analytical Value: Not Reported
Enforcement ID: Not Reported
Enf. Action: State Public Notif Requested
Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000
Enforcement ID: 9907044
Enf. Action: State Formal NOV Issued
Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000
Enforcement ID: 9907045
Enf. Action: State Public Notif Requested
TC01735539.1 r Page A-16

_~
GEOCHECK'~?-PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Direction
ui~tni~ce Datahase EDR ID Number _
GIS ID:
Classification by Type:
Occurrence Status:
23293
Invertebrate
Extant
NC_NHEO NC50006741
NC_NHEO NC50012850
GIS ID: 452371
Classification by Type: Invertebrate
Occurrence Status: Extant
TC01735539.1 r Page A-17

GEOCHECK~~~%- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
AREA RADON INFORMATION
State Database: NC Radon
Radon Test Results
County Result Type Total Sites Avg pCi/L Range pCi/L
POLK Statistical 9 2.94 0.20-17.30
POLK Non-Statistical 29 3.59 0.20-17.30
Federal EPA Radon Zone for POLK County: 2
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.
Federal Area Radon Information for Zip Code: 28782
Number of sites tested: 3
Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L % 4-20 pCi/L % >20 pCi/L
Living Area - 1st Floor 6.167 pCi/L 67% 33% 0%
Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Basement Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
TC01735539.1 r Page A-18

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.
TC01735539.1 r Page A-19

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.
TC01735539.1 r Page A-20

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.
TC01735539.1 r Page A-21

Appendix C. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms

North Carolina Division of Water Quality --Stream identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 2/2006 Project: FENCE Latitude: 035-12-O7N
~ Evaluator: AB Stte: Blockhouse Creek Longitude: D82-10-25W ~
I Totat Points: I Other
Stream Is at least intermittent County: Pglk e.g. Quad Name: Landrum
if? 19 arpemnnia! ff? 30
A. Geomorphology (subtotal = ~1 • S` ) Absent Weak:, Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bad and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Sail texture or stream substrate sorting D 1 2
5. Active/relic floedplaln D 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel 0 1 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 B Natural levees 0 1 3
10. Headcuts D i 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or dralnageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existin^
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
es = 3
Man-made d{tches are not rated; sea discussions In manual
R Hvrirninnv fStthtntal = 7.S- 1
14. Groundwaterflowldischarge 0 1 3
15. Water In channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rowln season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants ar debris 0 0.5 1
1 B. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 D.5 1.5
19. Hyddc soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = D Yes =1.5
(`_ Rinlnrnr fCi~htntal . ~ 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 D
21 . Rooted plants (n channel 3 2 1 C~
22. Crayfish 0 D.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (noie diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
2B. iron oxidizing bacterlalfungus. D D.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = D.S; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.D; Other = 0
"Items 20 and 2'[ focus on the presence of upland plants, Item z8 tocuses on the presence or aquauc or weuane p~ancs.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this farm for additional notes.)
tZ

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream identifcatian Form; Version 3.1
Date: 2!2006 Project: FENCE Latitude: 035-12-07N ,
Evaluator: AB Site: UT1 -Blockhouse Creek Longitude: 082-10-25W
I Total Points: I other
Stream !s at feast lnterrnittent County: Polk
if~f9orperennlalifa30 e.g.quadName: Landrum
A. Geomorphology (subtotal = Z~~) Absent Weak Moderate Strang
1B. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-paol sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 .3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Oeposltional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. 13ralded channel 0 1 2 3
B. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 H Natural levees 0 1 2 3
1D. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or dralnageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = D
Yes = 3
° Man-made dttches are not rated; see discussions In manual
R Hvrtrnlnnv (Si rhtntal = ~ 1
14. Groundwaterflowldischarge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack Ilnes) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils {redoximorphfc features) present? No = 0 Yes =1.5
f'. Rininnv fRuhtntal = ~_ 1
20 . Fibrous roots In channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
2fi. Macrobenthos (nose dlverslly and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxldiz(ng bacteriaffungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants In streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = D.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV ~ 2.0; Other = 0
-Items 20 ano z1 torus on the presence or uptane piarns, item za rocuses on use presence ^~ ayuauc ~~ wCUanu N~a~.w.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
~ .. ~S.S

North Catalina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Farm; Version 3.1
Date: 212006 Project: FFNCE Latitude: 035-12-O7N
Evaluator: AB Site: UT2 -Blockhouse Creek Longitude: 082-10-25W
Total Points: I Other I
Streamisatleastlntermlttent County: Polk e.g.QuadName: Landrum
if> 19 or perennla! if a 30
A. Geomorphology (subtotal = Z~) Absent Weak- Moderate 'Strong
1~. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. !n-channel stn.tcture: riffile-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture ar stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 X83
7. Braided channel 0 1 2
8. Recent al[uvlal deposits 0 1 2
9 ~ Natural levees 0 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
i2. Natural valley or dratnageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Nvrirnlnnv /~~ ihtntal = -7~ S 1
14. Groundwaterflowldischarge 0 1 3
15. Water In channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowln season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack Ilnes} 0 0.5 Q 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoxlmorphic features} present? No = 0 Yes ~ 1.5
f`. Rinlnnv f~iihtntal. 1 1
20 . Fibrous roots In channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rented plants In channe! 3 2 ® 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; pedphyton 0 1 2 3
28.1ron oxidizing bacterialfungus. ~ 0 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 uplane plants, Item za rocuses on uie presence or aqua^c of wnuni w N~a~ ~ W.
Notes: (use back side of this form for addfllonai notes.)
Sketch:
~=~~•~

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date; 2f2D06 Project: FENCE Latitude: 035-12-07N
Evaluator: A8 Slte: UT3 -Blockhouse Creek Longitude: 082-10-25W
Total Points: I Other I
Stream (s at least (ntermlitent County: Polk e,g, quad Name: Landrum
i(~ i9 arperennfa(f(? 30
A. Geomorphology (subtotal = Zb ~ Absent: Weak Moderate =Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 ~7 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 i 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional pars or benches 0 1 ~ 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 "2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 ~?. 3
9~ Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Neadcuts 0 1 2
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 L5
13.5econd or greater order channel an existing
USGS or NRCS map or otherdocumented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = s
"Man-made ditches are not rated; see dfscusslons to manual
R {-Ivrlrnfnnv (C~ihtntal - ~ 1
• ~ - - ~,.,
14. Groundwaterflow/discharge
0
1
2
15. Water fn channel and ~ 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 2
16. Leaflltter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines ar piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric Bolls {redoxlmorphlc features) present? No = 0 Yes =1.5
(' Rintrinv (Ci ihtntal . 7 ~
20 . Fibrous rcots In channel 3 2 0
21 . Roofed plants In channel 3 ~ 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
2fi. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterlalfungus. 0 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 Z1 Locus on the presence or upiana prams, ¢em La ~acuaes vn use Nirani u:a u~ ayuou~. ui wauon.. Nion.~.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for addlllonal notes.)
~ _ ~7

Appendix D. Wetland Delineation Data Forms

r~~.tl~~~ ~,~.~t
~ ~~`~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ gas ~ ~~~ ~ r .:: ~. , ~~~r~
(''lt, .~ L~~,.~__ ~S"~.i_~~.. 4€:~..n ~,r .e~,~ItoEE~, ',.t.~3i it~:~€€"1C.#~
..
c
FJ ~'G _

4 `.C ..
q
Y'f~]f,t,~ ~ .rCiC _
_
r
. ~

r~[eF7~li,.r,CET1 t.. s.x~S ~"t..~_.._. _
•

_... _
_-

rrp e
.:~~
t

i d ~£rl ? ~
i lI~ N F•4t Et~'~c:.El..i t`. _- _..... _ _ -_
.. W..
~.arw.. ~.
_
, __
_... ,: ..
a ~.
..:.:..,........ ~: ,m
i t; 1't~fi e~ ~ ~ 4 t tlitt~'~rl3tt ,~ ~ (tl I~it: tE gyp-
1 ~
`"
.f
("' ~ta
~f (4 y
l8' Eli tY l.~tC(~'~ F~~ _

C?Il E....`_ ~b~.
r
~
. ': t~,tlilti,°c,taLlr~f tat ' f°''?<<:F tt E~';;~li,.cv~
~@C
~
L£'I >i161i;1~t~i1~ ~G-'S_ t3 p
^
.
.:
~.
C:> ~~i' ..tr'e "s. S)Ui:v["kllcz~ ~)I'C)iYft "i1 ;xiir~.7
-~, ...E tT °? ~ '~C! "a ~

ice. ~ -~krF }>:~`tr_4t~:;t~jr ~?~~~~~r
1€~I tit' E;=c~
..SctE[ac'l~E:°'<i Iii ~p~~C`~'~st
i'1 1 3t' ~tl3 E3~~5
.t ~ttc rl:'.43i 1}c';`r G.z1t:5
~. r 3Jt r91iti ~a.~.Ft, ~7 iLiG~6 f t.: ;il '~' ~ `~-iS
~.bCs~:7{:~1 l:t t#C~~~c: ~1.;~<?.t:,i'a _ .~~°~ {°, E; i:Fllt~sst ~ Etir~ . aL ~ r.;
~ ~~ k' ~~~:.j:~C "~
.~ltii .r~~(J t , .CJ~,c, 1"~ ~'17Y4C ~.5 (!`i y5
~~~~.!'~:"i fC ~E°4.3~ L'lict'ct'!t7 ~~~:a .....__._ S'lIN..~ ~ t?y,Etr[--'~~`s iI s:1.4:2` i. ~'tf
~'~::r.~~t+_~t1~:i i?~t9 . (l~)ti t.tt}..=..: Et7 [~y'a...r'~;:ti:
_ ~~Cit~ .~"i. ~..::~ v, t~n ~ t€ v t;3cii CE ~t~
1..~1:~ to
~°iE.~~7i:rt tc~ ura#.~ ~?~~® .~ ~i~) _____ , ~ii{;_z~t(r4tE< 1<l i4 4
e CI 1 ~ ~, a

{{ !` ~ i pµ~~>p q~, ~} f
E 57~~',L)k~i~~ ley ~}~14J 43 ~~~_ ... ~.~ ---..~~ ~ -.3 .l _i!C~~'V~ ~~f'<.__ _ ,,,..~ I.~
i
'ri .!71 f1 ~k ..I... '..,~ ~<;y ~Yt~~l,. .'?(i 1 I iEl~ .._. .. .... i.,i".;.-
y r
tin (i'7 (~r,r1G=3n ht~ i ~:il i'.~e~;~Lm.~ lis`t`. I r j~ Il~itla~} ~ t ~r!tiL.n ~: - ~ ~ -s r.;
i:~i d,iu!,l ,, ' r i
~t ~t'"(; :CIE !F.'!:. ! (:i5i..
~_n.: Sri
~i.l'. .r1!~`~tt~SEl _._ E:1~rI(_3~ i,i~f';~l !~~.=o f,:ff!;...l:i.: ~,~y~r~~t~f~ad~c~iE
I'+y'!in<, fb~tt~: iL63r s: „tll'i~~ ~_ ~ I,~.,?{~(~ ~ I.C~i;t-~ [~~,'~~'t`€! .<< ~ t ..
ii,' ecs a tCf F kIl i ~ ~ t-~~ r F I ~ C:i )i L( }{s~~a f ,~'~~
_~ m
>g ~ -
_... ~,.
.~ iJ 4~., 9 E.,...:~!`~~' Y. ~vl Fes`, to fa4 ~ -. _ _
r '_ ....o ~ _......_.~.
'(¢~ t t 2!: z{ !.~~C~ s t~ lei de! ~ 1~a'! ,4i. ~. t! ~! ~i. ~ '{r - !'d
E i~~ !(j..- ~ ~{o ~~a i'E. 4~ of ~ ~ .._.._....._.,_ -,-....._
______~_
._. _ ~.. ~, ~..~~-~,..W
3, . ,E,:<.. ~_
~~ ~ ~~~E

Appendix E. Photo Log -Existing Conditions
Photos taken November 2006 to January 2007

Blockhouse Creek Reach 1

Blockhouse Creek Reach 2

Blockhouse. Creek. Reach 3
. ` `j
S 1
}S
V
T ~.' I

~.__

Unnamed Tributary 1

Unnamed Tributary 2

Appendix F. Big Branch Reference Reach (NCDOT Database)

I ~'C.C < <€ ~~
{'.~.trrF.aaia~ Yadkin-Pee Dee
'. r b~;~ €iF~C 03040101
t ~t~.~:z~c~€~ Off SR 1337 (Red Hill Creek Rd), south of
Ladonia, NC. Trib to Fisher River.
i1 Very private property!
..SCF'I~i~iCttt,

5~tate ..
NC
L.ra~i~t8€~P [Et~CiCFaetl ~~.Cl~~~`.`.;1
EeiLl~dc~G` (EJ~F"d~ifilzh~` dPe~rr:es)
r~,r=rat y Surry
~'ttir°~~€n ~,F ; ?,f~tin Piedmont (t.»~.r.<.€, t E.~.,~,~~a.~,~, rstir~s}
~.CCZI~CIfQP'i.
~ ~€~t, /~~ ivaie v

,,.eu.a.,.~ . - ...m...w.~ _ ... , _._.~
S~ . ~e~~t"aa:M'>
~IE:t!'lrta. C3Ir ~..c~~4:ESlc9~ln"itt
}`l,ii'Ifl3f~~'~ B~

Rercer~t ~i€~t/C ..~o~°" 8%
$~et`~~t~# d ~~~-:~~ 41%
E'c.t~:ettt Cc~ucl 38%
EEE
~

L1~'= 0.13 !~~ ~~~)
f13
0.3
(s°i.f~ri)

t.~~ 50 (r. ~~i ~

~~ .t: e:,:~~~~s-k PY'tr't< CC7T'sr "~;1i.3 '3;:EL~~ L.Q ~~~ ..i°.
~..... ,. ...... , . , .~...~ ~.......,,, .. ...,~... ...., .a,,..
..,~-,~ia~u~~.~ Bottom .,M..... .~....~.»... ., .,

u..~e..E.:'!:.xti+~s~~~'f:Fti:'~.
t~:~ s„,,~., ., €Et:<':, War-av€~,:~ fv~~ mats=t ..~ rn~Eyw;i~ E~€rs~r€d~d
8~'Ct ~s~@f~errt r~€,=i,~s ~~r•~ie~r, ,~rx L~a~~.~o €~.,. ~:€;,.€v~~riit€ t a:r}€c>t~~i <~urve
iVo t~rc~gs,.~ t~s~t~ W<riz~,~;c',4ecP ~o iricat~s,n i€~~-~,.~ai .~~~f>t E~Ft~~~>i~ie~9
too h~ rat ~ftlar_s data ~st-zy~tirq~.€~ `~
__
~~'~d~,4"'f;'~~Lifl~
~sf14S7~fPc~f~.F~';'E 4yp~~ t4 :.es~~o-,cp~.ia
[de~a:,E-t L~ncfit`t 330 (ft) &~~. 7~ '~c_~se~<~
4'~:~L-e.~::tie~ [~tairi<tge d~rea 1.90 (°.<W. n€) !'~~,, l~ir~:3d : w~s~rS~t<~s:~: Sla?r.e 0.0090
i
_s
fii..<f_C~t'..ai~C~c'lo T€t~pervi~~`u Vc~~lr,~ ~~ `?p.}t^
tf~lc~~ ~»~:<> A (t':- rc~ifsav€aW r~r dl c.llt~vf='€~ ,'~iley t.~~t~)t7 312 (ft:}

I_atti:i' Utiu= R (F,-- t€rizan ~~:° ~- r~€d(j
~t€~.a<~s~Ytr
1.10
~31~P~,, ~'rif1~_„ ~~ct,

E7~rVC~? ~?:~f~.~:~F~r.r~ ~Lstac~~ (~ ` c,c~E:.: Y~€' yes?
4i
9 t1VUf.~ ~ett~tEi°: C"~r~~ :,~~rfnc~ (chg,~:c~E.~ 3€ ~c.~,j
d ;~;rr€aE+*t{ thlc~'tWanc
t'<~~~~€~ Wzittae€ cw~` .Dense shrub and deciduous vegetation lining banks.
Vcr.;eta~..c~ C'rۥr:mi,r~
__
1.~+ffz~tr est~eci [3esrripi:ir~€~ Upstream land use in watershed is cattle grazing.
..._..,...M,................, »»....,....,..~..~._x....,.~..~,~...,.~».... ~.».~....... _ .m,... ,. ,,,~,~.M,.. ..,.,~. w., . ,. ,, ~w.

L~1 t ~ h ~_ 3Ct~
~.. e-s -.a ~" "'-.:-
'~aau ,~. r'~s[at~.~c.i~.:
~~r~~~~sa ~~ 35
~~r ~,;. ^vr:e Big Branch
.~ 7, / & nu~3 -~
Y'~Ca, ::"t.f t• ~a a^.,~~___. ~ -;. se sa•.. c"~ t ~..... `*~'' C' ~~i!!.t .s~.".C %~~ ~~1~ %'~e2X ~~~..:.°.o ., ~£ ..>i~t;~. '~e~'t ~ '-_~ .. ..a. ... ..2fiC 3-: ~e.~
.~ .. . _ ... .. .~r31i~.._,~ k _i, .Fffi? ~ ~c.F . ts'
0+35 Pool 19.7 2.8 54.5 4.1 130
3+13 Pool 185 2.8 _ 51 3.5 130
0+92 Riffle 19.3 2.1 39.9 2.7 130
0+03 Riffle 21.5 1.8 39.6 2.5 130.

-.~, ,,
L~ ~ ~ k,~..,3~.~~ ~..~ ~~.
ERa
_

~s=~~;~ ~ -.~ Big Branch
'~-~~Yr ~'`^ i'1x~c.l~.~: "a ~.4F't r''i..l ,.c,~?S:-- ~..~ ~ 'r^.,r~ ~; r~ t`x.:?;.,,_>.. ~ mac... »">T6c''..- ~~'6:.; ..+'': 'tCf '?•+D! '" C . i i'i:}
185 42.3 30.5 97.5
260 63.1 44 179.8
55.3

~,/ ~Ei
j# .'~
~,.""" ' S

4..
s~tr~c:n :. 35 arL, :`ate . :..rya ~ ~9~~=~ _ 0.009
~#~~~~~ Fed..--,.. Big Branch > ~'_ _.:~ey c~T
~{a.~> .-en~w 312
.~~ i:P
~•,ta~~~~~ 1.1
'•"-_'~C >?~~$1C^'~-.~ ';~s ~G,.~ ~=r,~~ ..3'i??~ RE~~ ~ ~Ch.~ _ ~:iCF^ cy~j~8
0.019
0.016
0.015

x~tr~~m T~3 35
w~tr c ~s~° ~ .~r:E:~. Big Branch
X _.....
~F~d~~~iE~C:w'E1.FAA ~[k G~~~'~<~ Ilfef .?.~1
,~~~~~l~~~ .~ "ivti~~~E~. is~~f_i~ ~2atio 10.57
E~~?:s~encf~nEert f ,fs~a 6.39
~ i3t~tRk F~eigl~w t~~tira
E ~~~9 4-°~ ~.lt{~; ~~eFk~ul! Mric~th"` 0.94
i'~~x {. ,E ~ r~c~~il~. t3~a~~ ~ialE tleE>ti~'~ 1.95
!`~ear~ ~aar~l cte,~thE ~`.=ttl~~~Et ~:r~~~l,'~`
3 1.44
3•~a<ia ~re~a: Ftit~lc~ ~sr~e*,<;~*' 1.33`

~'[i6rt SlEli F<'"i ~c9%Ik11~.5 t'"f
9.19 11.94
6.05. 6.74
t
0.91 0.97
1.79 2.10
1.44 1.44
1.28 1.37
.~.,~.,V,.._...,~..,....._.....~...... ..» ....~..,,.~. r.,~
~~ ~atia d,~r~n~t~i€~s .. .€•s' ar~~ the f ~tf:<-~, E4~~aa~~ ~:~r~':~uif t:•~i~~_~,

Appendix G. Existing Conditions Data

Blockhouse Creek Existing Profile
~z> TWG
LTB
RTB
~- WSF
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Station

~,.~
[ Stream I ~ ~ Max ~~.F ~ ;
~t~re T~ ~~~~ ~~;F Area 'Eh, ;,r,,~i~~`ii? ~~~~^ `. ~~~s!~ W/D ` Wit; ~~<t€~ ER ~~~:~ Elev'~, TOB Elev
~iifi~ ~~I E5 ( 30 ~i 16.92 1.8~ ', ~.U:a ! 9.36 2.8 1.9 o;~L.66 !~ 88204 jj
Blockhouse Creek Reach 1Cross-section
884 ~ --
f
882 ` ~~
e ~`--~<.
0 880 ~:v._, - --- -- - ---------- °--- ; ~
878 ~ /'
w 876 ~ - ,
874 ; _ ~- -~_, - y
872:
..100 .....105 .....1.1.0 .........115 ............120 125 130 135 140 145 150
Station - ~ ®- Bankfull - - ~ - ° Floodprone

Stream ~~;F E u r. ~~~;~
Feature Type ~"i °= .~ - F3,~= W'u °~; ~^`'=i'€ Depth W/D BH Ratio
Riffle _ << 49.7 ~ ~ `' x.56 1.94 3.25 '! 13.15 ~ 2 -
Blockhouse Creek Reach 3Cross-section
878
876
c 874
0
872
m
w 870
868
866
s ~~
ER ~ ~KF Elev TOB Etev
~; ~ E 870.95 874.35
\. __
100 .........110
120 __130
140. 150
Station
160
170 180 190 200
- Bankfull ° - o - - Floodprone

Stream ~ ~ f ~~"`~` I~.ia.. ~~f- y -E
Feature ~ ~,~~~ `~'~_ ,~~c~ =QK~ Wic.~€'~I C~~~,?~€ Depth '~,`ti'i~ BH Ratio ~ ER ~ BKF Elev TOB ~I~~°.
Riffle ~' 491 212 ~.`1 3.34 9.16 1.1 7.8 ~4~~'.='.~: 867.91 ~

Blockhouse Creek Reach 3Cross-section
871
870 .~ ~ ®._ ,.------------- .------ - -- - - - -------
869
~ 868
m 867
w
866
865

864
---100 ----110 --- -- 120 130 ------140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Station ~ - - Bankfull - ~ ~ - - Floodprone

Feature ~'~ Stream
n~
~ ~ BKF ~ Max I;~iF
~~ti~ 1",r~~ ~<BKF `v+~1~~~~tr~ Q~r~' ~~ ~~ ~ W/D ~~ r~H ~~~atiti. ~ ER
~ [
- =1ev' TOB Elev
~
~
~.€lile. E5 80.7 j
861 A7
' 2.95 ~ 9.1 ~ 3.9 'i.~ ~
36.3 1'~.'8~ ~ 2
Blockhouse Creek Reach 4Cross-section
872
870
868
0 866
w
~ 864
__,.n----_-----. -*---~___
w 862
860
858 -
856
_ _ _1 00 .................1.10 ...............120 130 140 ..............150 160 170
Station - ° - Bankfuil - - ~ - - Floodprone

Stream
l ~ r u F ~~,' ~,ft~x F'~= `
` TOB Elev '
BKF k~
'
i Feature ~ ~-,~~~~e ~f~~ ' ~, ~ ~ ~ .F ~.',r~~ ~~ ~~r. j Deeth .cw
~ ER ~
W/D ~ BH Ratio
Iff ~ =5
R ~ 35 6 ~ 19 5 ~ 1 83 ~ 3 17 ~ 1U.6t3 ~ 1.7 j ~ .~u ~ 856.1 858.38 j
I e
Blockhouse Creek Reach 4Cross-section
860
859
-- 0
-.~ -- - - - --- -- ~w ~
858 P
0 857
856 ._.a ®___.._z®_; _.®_-____.._..®.m. .®__.~ .®._
w 855
854
853

852
---100 --105 ---110 --115 -- 120 125 130
Station - - - Bankfull - - ~ - - Floodprone

Unnamed Tributary 1 Existing Profile
.....290 390 .......................... 490 590
Station

Stream ~ i ~ ~ i= Max ~;' = f
1 F~at~~rG ~"'y~~e ~~C~ ;,v~ ~~:~: ir,ri~~ ~,~ ~~c~~ ~~F to W/D BH »~3~ i E~~ BKF Elev ~~ TOB ~tev
'Riffle E4 ~.~ 9.26 0.91 1.47 10.22 3.2 2.6 878.73 881.92
Unnamed Tributary 1Cross-section
883
882
c 881
~ 880
d
w 879 ._-.....m~,~®®----
878
877

290 490 690 690 1090 1290
Station

z Stream i ~ ~~iF Max ~'.~ ,
I
€~Lt.~~,re i ypG ~~:F ,y, __,. ~~;~F ~,'~!ct ~'~ Depth ~:~r~th. WlD BH Ratio ER ~ o~S= Elev ~~~ TOB Elev
Riffle f 3 8 6 29 ! ~~ o.~ i 0 94 10.3 2.8 3.6 874.72 876.4 ~
~~ _. .
Unnamed Tributary 2Cross-section
880
879
878
~ 877
~a
ai
876
_ _
- ----- ---- ---... --._, _. _F„---------
~
w 875 _m_.. w®_.__.
874

873.
100 105 1.10_ 11.5... 120 .....1.25.. 130 135 140
Station ° Bankfuil - - ~ - - Floodprone

Subpavement Particle Distribution Comparison
- _ ~ - _- _
100 - _ - _
i i i I i I I ~ I ~ ~
I ( ( I ~ i
80 I ~ ~. -! i
I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- - Cumulative Percent -Reference
-
-~o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ - Class Percent -Reference i
3 ~ i
!. -Cumulative Percent -Project
.~
~ ~ ~ ( ( - Class Percent -Project
50 - ..~~ _.. ._ _
~-- -.
I
d
a ~
~ ~~m ~
~~
- 30 ..~ ( _---..-~-~ ~ ~ _ _ I i a
a i
~ ~
I i 3 4
_10 _ _
~~~~, ~ ~ , i , ~ ~ , a
0.01 0.1 1 10 100...... 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
SilUClay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
f-----

Stream ~ ~~.~ M
~,
Feature ~ T ~~~e '~ '~ BKF ~.+~.~'ia,,, ~ens~€~,
Riffle ~ ~ ( 3 8 ~~~ 6 29 0.61

x ~tiF 4 3
".;~t; s W/D BH Ratio y'i~~ ER ~ ~; 4F ~r'~ ~~''a Elev ,
).94 ' 0.3 ' 2.8 ~.~ ~ 874.72 876.x. ~
Unnamed Tributary 2Cross-section
880
879
878
~ 877
ea
ai
876

_ ..,..__,._..._.. .___,...-...----R.-.__ v.
w 875 _ _
874

873.
...100 ..............105 110_ 1.15...._ 120 ........125.... 130 135 140
Station - Bankfull - - ~ - - Floodprone ~

s Stream ! 3~F ~
~ I vac ~ ~~;~ `
~~~~ Feat ure ~ T!~~~e ,~'r~~ Area ~, ~ ~3i1~~~
~~.~ `. ':~~,~~ Cer.~°t WlD '~ BH Ratio ~ ER f u~:~ ~~~w ~ TOB Elev
R'E€.~ ~ E5 3.~ 6 29 0.61 ~ 0.94 10.3 2.8 3.E 874.72 87ti.4
Unnamed Tributary 2Cross-section

880
_ 879
878
~
877
m 876
- --- ---- n--- _
-;----- _.__.~r -- --
w 875 -_-w.---a®Wm
874

873.
100 105 110 115 120 ..125._ 130 135 140
Station - - ~ - - Bankfull - - ~ - - Floodprone
___