20081441 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20080919

McKee Creek, Cabarrus County
Prepared for:
rA "*-- I
Lf o SLL. m
PR UOV A.A
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh NC 27604
Restoration Plan
August 15, 2008
Prepared by:
WITH ER S ? RAVEN EL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Withers & Ravenel
111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Project Manager: C. Heath Wadsworth, PE
Email: [e-mail]
Direct Line: [phone]
Executive Summary
i. Project goals and objectives
The McKee Creek project is located in southwestern Cabarrus County near the Mecklenburg
County line; the majority of the McKee Creek drainage basin is located in Mecklenburg County.
The site lies in the Yadkin River Basin, within the Rocky River sub-basin (HUC8 - 03040105)
and in the Reedy Creek local watershed (14-Digit HUC - 03040105010050). Approximately half
of the Reedy Creek local watershed is located in eastern Mecklenburg County and the other half
is in southwestern Cabarrus County. A Local Watershed Plan (LWP) has been developed for the
Reedy Creek watershed; the plan is called Watershed Management Plans & Recommendations
Lower Yadkin/ Upper Rocky River Basin Local Watershed Planning (WMP&R - Lower Yadkin/
Upper Rocky River Basin LWP, 2004). The LWP describes the watershed as predominately rural
in character, with the addition of the newly opened Interstate Route 485 beginning to foster
development within the watershed. The Plan also states that the presence of several large tracts
of land under single ownership makes the Reedy Creek local watershed a prime candidate for
rapid residential and commercial development (WMP&R - Lower Yadkin/ Upper Rocky River
Basin LWP, 2004). An assessment of the McKee Creek watershed while creating this restoration
plan confirms that rapid development is underway along the Interstate 485 corridor.
The proposed project includes restoration work along two streams, McKee and Clear Creek. The
majority of the project site consists of pasture land with a narrow forested buffer along portions of
McKee Creek. Along the lower half of the project site livestock currently has unlimited access to
McKee and Clear Creeks. The McKee Creek project was identified in the Lower Yadkin River
Basin Local Watershed Plan. The functional improvement goals that were listed in the LWP for
the project were to repair buffer disturbance, decrease/repair streambank erosion, prevent/limit
livestock access, repair channel alteration, decrease turbidity, and remove/ control nutrients
(WMP&R - Lower Yadkin/ Upper Rocky River Basin LWP, 2004). The proposed restoration
plan for the McKee Creek project will achieve most of the LWP goals by fencing and removing
livestock from the creeks, and establishing and protecting a vegetative buffer within a
conservation easement. The goals pertaining to stabilization and erosion will be addressed by
using in-stream structures and pattern re-alignment in selected areas along McKee Creek, and by
restoring the dimension, pattern, and profile of Clear Creek.
The existing stream conditions within the project area are characterized by excess sedimentation,
channel incision, bank degradation, and limited riparian buffer. Also, livestock have unlimited
access to all of Clear Creek and a portion of the lower reach of McKee Creek, this has
significantly contributed to the instability and poor water quality of the project reaches. The
project design goals are to restore through stream enhancement (Level I and Level II) McKee
Creek, and to restore Clear Creek (Priority I restoration). In order to achieve the design goals, the
following objectives have been identified:
¦ Improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, restricting livestock access to the
creeks, and re-establishing the riparian buffer;
¦ Stabilize McKee Creek through the use of in-stream structures and pattern re-alignment
in selected areas;
¦ Restore the dimension, pattern, and profile of Clear Creek;
¦ Improve the floodplain functionality of Clear Creek by matching floodplain elevation
with bankfull stage;
¦ Improve the wildlife habitat functions of the site through riparian buffer establishment,
improved stream bedform diversity, and improved floodplain functionality.
¦ Protect the site through a permanent conservation easement along the project reaches.
In order to determine if the project design successfully achieves the objectives listed above,
monitoring will be performed on the as-built condition for 5-years. The success of the design
streams overall stability and functionality will be determined through cross-section and
longitudinal surveys, pebble counts, and photo reference sites. Changes to the physical cross-
section and/or longitudinal measurements will be evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition. The success of the buffer establishment objective
will be measured through photo reference sites, plant survival plots, live stake counts, and tree
counts.
ii. Existing amount of streams
McKee Creek has been divided into two reaches within the project site; McKee Creek - Reach 1
is upstream of Peach Orchard Road and McKee Creek - Reach 2 is downstream of the crossing.
The existing stream lengths of McKee Creek - Reach 1 and Reach 2 are 3,733 linear feet (lf) and
8471f, respectively. The third project reach is Clear Creek; it has an existing stream length of
1,513 If The total existing amount of stream within the project limits is 6,093 If.
iii. Amount of streams designed
The proposed stream design will result in 1,641 if of stream restoration on Clear Creek, and 1,096
If of stream enhancement (Level I) and 3,2401f of stream enhancement (Level II) on McKee
Creek. The total proposed amount of streams designed is 5,9771f.
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location ...................................................
1.1. Directions to Project Site ....................................................................
1.2. USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
1.3. Project Vicinity Map ..........................................................................
2.0 Watershed Characterization ....................................................................
2.1. Drainage Area ....................................................................................
2.2. Surface Water Classification / Water Quality ......................................
2.3. Physiography. Geology and Soils .......................................................
2.4. Historical Land Use and Development Trends ....................................
2.5. Endangered / Threatened Species ........................................................
2.6. Cultural Resources .............................................................................
2.7. Potential Constraints ...........................................................................
2.7.1. Property Ownership and Boundary ............................................
2.7.2. Site Access .................................................................................
2.7.3. Utilities ......................................................................................
2.7.4. FFMA /Hydrologic Trespass .....................................................
3.0 Project Site Streams (existing conditions) ...............................................
3.1. Channel Classification ........................................................................
3.2. Discharge (bankfull, trends) ................................................................
3.3. Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile) ..............................
3.4. Channel Stability Assessment .............................................................
3.5. Bankfull Verification ..........................................................................
3.6. Vegetation ..........................................................................................
4.0 Reference Streams ..................................................................................
4.1. Watershed Characterization ................................................................
4.2. Channel Classification ........................................................................
4.3. Discharge (bankfull, trends) ................................................................
4.4. Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile) ..............................
4.5. Channel Stability and Assessment .......................................................
4.6. Bankfull Verification ..........................................................................
4.7. Vegetation ..........................................................................................
5.0 Project Site Restoration Plan ...................................................................
5.1. Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ............................................
5.1.1. Designed Channel Classification ................................................
5.1.2. Target Buffer Communities ........................................................
5.2. Sediment Transport Analysis ..............................................................
5.2.1. Methodology ..............................................................................
5.2.2. Calculations and Discussion ......................................................
5.3. HEC-RAS Analysis ............................................................................
5.3.1. No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR ............................................................
5.3.2. Hydrologic Trespass ..................................................................
5.4. Natural Plant Community Restoration .................................................
5.4.1. Narrative & Plant Community Restoration .................................
5.4.2. On-site invasive Species Management ........................................
6.0 Performance Criteria ...............................................................................
6.1. Streams ..............................................................................................
6.2. Vegetation ..........................................................................................
6.3. Schedule / Reporting ..........................................................................
7.0 References ..............................................................................................
..1
..1
..1
..1
..1
..1
..2
..2
..2
..3
..4
..5
..5
..5
..5
..6
..6
..6
..7
..8
..9
10
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
15
16
16
16
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
22
8.0 Tables
Table 1. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Table 2. Drainage Areas
Table 3. Land Use of Watershed
Table 4a - c. Morphological Tables
Table 5. BEHI/NBS and Sediment Export Estimate for Project Site Streams
Table 6. BEHI/NBS and Sediment Export Estimate for Reference Stream
Table 7. Designed Vegetative Communities (by zone)
Table 8. HEC-RAS Bankfull Model Output Table (McKee Creek - Reach 1)
Table 9. HEC-RAS Bankfull Model Output Table (McKee Creek - Reach 2)
Table 10. HEC-RAS Bankfull Model Output Table (Clear Creek)
Table 11. Sediment Transport Competency Analysis Using HEC-RAS (McKee Creek - Reach 1)
Table 12. Sediment Transport Competency Analysis Using HEC-RAS (McKee Creek - Reach 2)
9.0 Figures
Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Site Watershed Map
Figure 3. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 4a - b. Project Site Hydrological Features Map with Gauge Locations
Figure 5. Reference Site Vicinity Map
Figure 6. References Site Watershed Map
Figure 7. Reference Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 8. Reference Site Vegetative Communities Map
10.0 Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Stage vs. Stream Power for Clear Creek (Existing compared to Design)
Exhibit 2. Stability Curves from HEC-RAS (Clear Creek Design)
Exhibit 3. NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve (reference and survey data comparison)
11.0 Design Sheets
Sheets A - G. Existing Channel or Site Conditions
Sheets 1 - 5. Designed Channel Alignment and / or Site Conditions (With Longitudinal Profile)
Sheet 7 - 8. Designed Vegetative Communities Map (by Zone)
12.0 Appendices
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Project Site USACE Routine Wetlands Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. Reference Site Photographs
Appendix 5. Reference Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 6. Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 7. HEC-RAS Analysis
Appendix 8. FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location
I.I. Directions to Project Site
The project site is located approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the intersection of NCSR 1168
Robinson Church Road and NCSR 1169 Peach Orchard Road (Latitude: 35.2687°N and
Longitude: 80.6372°W). Take US-64 West from the Raleigh area to Asheboro, and then take
NC-49 approximately 54 miles south to Harrisburg. Once in Harrisburg, turn left off of NC-49
onto NCSR 1168 Robinson Church Road. Stay on Robinson Church for approximately 4 miles,
and then turn left onto NCSR 1169 Peach Orchard Road. Peach Orchard Road intersects the
project site.
The project site is currently used for agriculture; the majority of the floodplain consists of pasture
and livestock grazing areas. The proposed easement area for the section of McKee Creek
upstream of Peach Orchard Road has a narrow forested buffer with the remaining areas consisting
mostly of pasture. The proposed easement area for the section of McKee Creek downstream of
Peach Orchard Road and along Clear Creek maintains some forested areas, but the forested buffer
in this area has been heavily disturbed by livestock intrusion. The total area for the proposed
conservation easement is approximately 16.9 acres.
1.2. USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The site lies in the Yadkin River Basin, within the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-07-11 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit
03040105. The project is in the Reedy Creek local watershed (14-Digit HUC -
03040105010050).
1.3. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1 in the appendix shows the project vicinity map. The project site is located in
southwestern Cabarrus County near the Mecklenburg County line; it is approximately 8 miles
northeast of downtown Charlotte.
2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1. Drainage Area
The watershed boundaries and drainage area sizes for the three project reaches are shown on
Figure 2 and Table 2. The McKee Creek drainage area at the downstream project limits is 6.6
mil, and the drainage area at the downstream limit of Clear Creek is 1.0 miZ. The drainage basin
areas were determined using Mecklenburg and Cabarrus County topography in GIS. The
majority of the McKee Creek watershed extends into a developing area within Mecklenburg
County; the Interstate 485 (I-485) corridor crosses the basin boundaries approximately 1 mile
upstream of the project limits. The Clear Creek watershed drains a fairly rural section of
Cabarrus County.
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan I of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
2.2. Surface Water Classification / Water Quality
The stream index number for Clear Creek is 13-17-8-4-1 and the water quality classification is
"C". The stream index number for McKee Creek is 13-17-8-4 and the water quality classification
is "C". According to the Lower Yadkin River Basin Local Watershed Plan (Lower Yadkin LWP
- PFR, 2003 and WMP&R - Lower Yadkin LWP, 2004) both McKee Creek (from source to
Reedy Creek) and Clear Creek (from source to McKee Creek) are 303(d) listed streams; McKee
Creek for fecal coliform and sediment and Clear Creek for fecal coliform (NCDENR, 2004).
According to NCDENR the potential sources of impairment for McKee Creek include minor non-
municipal discharges, agriculture, land development, and urban runoff/ storm sewers, and for
Clear Creek potential impairment sources include agriculture, land development, and urban
runoff/ storm sewers (NCDENR, 2003b). It is stated in the LWP that DWQ studies of fecal
coliform bacterial sources for McKee and Clear Creeks have indicated that livestock grazing is
one of the contributing factors. There are two minor NPDES permitted discharges from private
wastewater treatment plants that empty into McKee Creek that are located upstream of the project
site. One of the discharges is located just upstream of the project limits.
2.3. Physiography. Geology and Soils
The physiographic region in which McKee and Clear Creeks are located is identified as the
Piedmont; the southern outer piedmont ecoregion of the Piedmont. This region stretches from the
base of the Blue Ridge east to the fall line and is characterized by soils which range from gravelly
loams to clay. The underlying geology includes metamorphosed Mafic rock and metamorphosed
Quartz Diorite; soil depth to bedrock can range from 5 to more than 15 feet.
The project site is located at approximately 605 feet above sea level and within the Mixed Felsic
and Mafic Soil Systems. The soil series is Chewacla, a sandy loam that is somewhat poorly
drained and found in floodplains (0-2% slope) throughout the Piedmont, encompasses both the
McKee and Clear Creek project areas. Outside of the growing season, November through April,
the water table in these piedmont floodplains can be within 0.5 feet of the surface depending upon
rainfall. The average annual rainfall for Cabarrus County is 47.3 inches.
2.4. Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The land use and current impervious cover estimates for both the McKee and Clear Creek
watersheds was determined using Mecklenburg and Cabarrus County GIS data, as well as
available digital aerial photos. The historical land use information was determined from
historical aerial photographs for Cabarrus County. The more recent land use trend information
pertaining to urbanization was obtained from the Lower Yadkin Local Watershed Plan (L WP)
Preliminary Findings Report (Lower Yadkin LWP - PFR, 2003).
The historic land use within the project watersheds and within the project boundary is very
consistent with a typical piedmont rural farm landscape. Dating back to 1938, and likely before
this year due to the well defined established field boundaries, the historical land use adjacent to
the project has consisted of pasture/hay fields (perennial grasses) and forested areas. The upland
land use, determined by the soil type, has typically been dominated by pasture/hay fields, and the
lower lying land (floodplain) has been dominated by a forested cover type. However, during
review of the 1938 and 1956 aerial photographs, several fields directly adjacent to McKee Creek
were cultivated. The photographs post 1956 and actual field reconnaissance indicate that
cultivating farming practices seized and the fields were converted to either pasture or hay fields.
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 2 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
Generally, streams that are located within the historic land use areas described for the watershed
and project site have been heavily impacted by channelization practices or livestock intrusion.
Straightening, channelization, and/or channel relocation to the streams is very common in these
areas because the historic landowners attempted to maximize the use of their lands for pasture,
hay fields, and/or cultivation. This was usually done by relocating the stream channel to the
unnatural valley edge, and using channelization practices in order to reduce the frequency in
which storm events accessed the floodplain.
As previously stated above, the majority of the McKee Creek watershed is located in a
developing region of Mecklenburg County. Tables 3 outlines a breakdown of the McKee Creek
drainage basin's land use. Over half of the drainage area has already been developed; the
majority of the development is single-family residential (52% of total drainage area).
Approximately 42% consists of woods and pasture land that has not yet been developed. A large
portion of the undeveloped land is adjacent to the I-485 corridor, and is mostly made up of large
parcels of land. Due to this, it is highly likely that the woods and pasture lands will be developed
in the near future. A large portion of the development in the watershed has occurred within the
last 5 to 8 years. The Lower Yadkin - LWP, which included data mostly collected from the years
2000 to 2002, estimated the impervious cover to be 3.7% and for forested and agricultural lands
to comprise 93% of the watershed (Lower Yadkin LWP - PFR, 2003). A current assessment of
the land use estimates that the impervious cover is 10% to 12% and that woods and pasture now
make up approximately 42% of the McKee Creek basin. This trend of development within the
watershed is consistent with the Lower Yadkin - LWP, which projected population growth from
2000 to 2010 to be 19.8% and 15.5% within the Mecklenburg and Cabarrus County portions of
the basin, respectively (Lower Yadkin LWP - PFR, 2003).
The Clear Creek watershed has some development, but is still mostly rural (83% woods and
pasture land). A single-family residential development is currently under construction in the
upper reaches of the watershed. The project reach has been exposed to higher than normal levels
of fine sediments from the upstream reaches due to poor erosion control practices. Local and
County officials are aware of the erosion control issues and have implemented closer monitoring
and enforcement. Development trends within southwestern Cabarrus County indicate that the
woods and pasture lands within the Clear Creek drainage basin will eventually be replaced with
single-family residential subdivisions (probably within the next 10 to 15 years).
The projected future development, which will eventually change the watershed character from
rural to more urban, could threaten the sustained stability of the proposed designs. However, it is
anticipated that the project designs will maintain stability through the use of grade control, bank
protection, and most importantly an established vegetative buffer. Also, the implementation of
stormwater ordinances by Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties, and the Town of Harrisburg,
which require the attenuation of runoff at each proposed development, should limit the increases
in the peak discharges that are experienced by the design channels. The impacts that current and
future development may have on stream stability and the bankfull discharge is further discussed
in Section 3.5 Bank-full Verification.
2.5. Endangered / Threatened Species
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower Endangered
Lasmigona decorata Carolina Heelsplitter Endangered
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 3 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - Federally Endangered.
The Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb that often reaches the height of 3 to 6 feet. This
herb usually forms a solitary stem in which branching occurs at or near mid-stem. Lanceolate
pubescent leaves develop in an alternate pattern near the lower portion of the stem and an
opposite pattern closer to the flower. These leaves usually have an entire leaf margin with the
occasion serration and are approximately 5 times longer than they are wide. The flowering period
occurs during late August and into early September were petals 0.75 to 1.25 inches long form
around the small seed head. Preferred habitat of the Schweinitz's sunflower consists of areas that
are maintained by fire or some other kind of disturbance. Habitat in which the Schweinitz's
sunflower would be found today consists of old pastures, utility easements, and roadsides. The
preferred soil type is a shallow clay soil produced from the parent material derived from mafic
rocks (USFWS 1994).
No populations of Schweinitz's sunflower have been documented in the project area (NCNHP
records).
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) - Federally Endangered.
Carolina Heelsplitter is a fresh water mussel (bivalve) that, as an adult can be 4.6 inches in length,
1.56 inches in width, and 2.7 inches high. The outer shell is usually a dark brown to a greenish
brown. The inside portion of the shell in younger mussels is a white to a bluish white. Mature
mussels have an orange tint to the inner shell. The desired habitat consists of mud, muddy sand,
and muddy gravel near the banks of a stable well shaded stream.
No populations of the Carolina Heelsplitter have been documented in the project area (NCNHP
records). Although a population was observed within one mile of the site, it was last observed
prior to 1870, and is listed as extirpated in the NHP database.
In conclusion;
No suitable habitat or soils were observed that could potentially support populations of
Schweinitz's sunflower, therefore, we believe that this project will have `no affect' on
populations of Schweinitz's sunflower.
Although a perennial stream is present in the project corridor, due to the fact that the stream has
been degraded and the fact that the stream lacks a vegetated riparian corridor, it is unlikely that
the Carolina Heelsplitter is present. Moreover, the occurrence reported by the NCNHP office is
located in a tributary downstream of our project and listed as historic. The Heelsplitter has not
been observed since 1870 and is listed as extirpated on the NHP database. Therefore, we believe
that the restoration of McKee Creek and Clear Creek will have `no affect' on populations of the
Carolina Heelsplitter.
2.6. Cultural Resources
The project team utilized the resources provided by the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (NCSHPO) to research and identify any historic structures potentially located
within the McKee Creek restoration project boundaries. The team also reviewed maps provided
by the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (NCOSA) to research and identify the
presence, absence, or potential for any archaeological sites within or adjacent to the proposed
restoration project. Additionally, the property owner was interviewed regarding any known
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 4 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
structures existing in the vicinity of the restoration corridor. Visual investigations were
conducted in the field to verify researched information.
No archaeological sites of interest requiring field evaluation were identified by NCSHPO or
NCOSA during the records search for this project. Additionally, the determination of no historic
architecture within the project boundary was confirmed visually during the existing conditions
mapping. A letter dated August 9, 2007, was sent to the State Historic Preservation Office and
the State Office of Archaeology requesting concurrence with our determination of no impact by
the proposed restoration project on structures or sites listed on or potentially eligible for the
Federal Register. We have recently received correspondence from the State Historic Preservation
Office stating that they have `no comment' on the project as proposed.
2.7. Potential Constraints
2.7.1. Property Ownership and Boundary
The project parcel that will be impacted is the A. Eugene Divine property located along NCSR
1169 Peach Orchard Road. The parcel is owned in fee simple by A. Eugene Divine as recorded
in deed book 819, page 182 and contains 180 acres more or less. All sections of McKee Creek
and Clear Creek that will be restored or enhanced fall completely within the Divine property
boundary line. The downstream project limits for the designs on McKee and Clear Creeks will be
at the property boundary between the A. Eugene Divine and Giant Peach, LLC properties. Since
a portion of the shared property boundary falls within the confines of McKee Creek, it will be
necessary to stake the property line during construction in order to minimize impact to the Giant
Peach, LLC property.
2.7.2. Site Access
Two gated access points exist along NCSR 1169 Peach Orchard Road and provide limited entry
to the project site. These entry points should be sufficient for construction and monitoring
purposes with slight modification and reinforcement. A third access point along the road is the
shared driveway for the Divine home. This is the sole entry point to the upstream section of
McKee Creek from the project start point to the intersection with NCSR 1169. This entry point is
sufficient for design and monitoring access purposes, but it cannot be used for construction. A
replacement entry point will be planned in the project design to facilitate access to the upper
reach of McKee Creek.
2.7.3. Utilities
The following utilities and easements were found to exist on or near the A. Eugene Divine parcel
located along NCSR 1169 Peach Orchard Road. Several properties bordering Peach Orchard
Road refer to a right-of-way claimed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation within
their deed description. No deed dedicating this right-of-way has been found during record
searches for the project. The lack of a deed does not preclude the existence of a right-of-way.
Therefore, we may at this time safely infer from the limited evidence that NCDOT has only
claimed a maintenance right-of-way for NCSR 1169 Peach Orchard Road. This right-of-way
would encompass an area sufficient for maintaining the road and the bridge located at the
intersection between McKee Creek and NCSR 1169. A maintenance right-of-way typically
extends from back of ditch to back of ditch along the alignment of the roadway and usually does
not exceed a 60 foot width. The maintenance right-of-way should not be affected by the project
as all restoration activities are planned to be outside this area to mitigate any adverse effects to
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 5 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
the roadway and bridge. The conservation easement will be created to have no overlap with the
NCDOT right-of-way to ensure no future easement conflicts.
A twenty foot utility easement was granted to Public Service Company of North Carolina, INC.
in deed book 670, page 306 for the purpose of laying, constructing, and maintaining a natural gas
pipeline. The easement is aligned and centered on the pipeline as constructed. The easement is
located within the maintenance right of way for NCSR 1169 and should not be affected by the
project.
2.7.4. FEMA /Hydrologic Trespass
Hydraulic modeling with HEC-RAS has confirmed that hydraulic trespass will not be an issue on
the McKee Creek Project. Hydraulic trespass was considered during the design of all the project
stream reaches; the designs were altered in order to avoid trespass issues.
The section of McKee Creek within the project limits is located in a FEMA detailed floodplain.
Stream enhancement (Level I) is proposed on sections of the project reach of McKee Creek.
Some of the existing sections along McKee Creek project reaches have experienced channel
deposition since the cross-sections were surveyed for the original FEMA flood model. Since our
proposed design will remove some of the deposited sediment, the proposed 100-year water
surface elevation is less than the corrected effective/ existing condition 100-year water surface
elevation (decrease greater than 0.1 ft). As a result, it is anticipated that a FEMA Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) will be required at the conclusion of the project's construction; the LOMR will
be submitted by the NC EEP. The local floodplain administrator for Cabarrus County was
contacted (Mike Byrd). Mr. Byrd stated that what he required for us to show compliance was
verification that our design would not cause hydraulic trespass issues to the adjacent properties
(comparing proposed condition to the existing condition). The proposed design condition meets
Mr. Byrd's standards for compliance. However, the NC EEP is mandated by the State of North
Carolina to comply with the FEMA rules and regulations which currently state that if the
proposed condition causes more than a 0.1 ft decrease when compared to the corrected
effective/existing condition then a LOMR is required.
3.0 Proiect Site Streams (existing conditions)
The following report sections summarize the existing conditions of the project reaches. The
project streams were divided into three different reaches; McKee Creek - Reach 1, McKee Creek
- Reach 2, and Clear Creek. The McKee Creek reaches are separated by the bridge crossing at
Peach Orchard Rd. Detailed maps of the existing site conditions are outlined on Sheets A
through G within Section 11 of this report; Sheet A shows the location of the three project
reaches. All stationing referenced in this section corresponds with the existing alignments shown
on the existing site conditions sheets. McKee Creek and Clear Creek are identified as 3rd order
streams by the Strahler Stream Order methodology (Lanfear, 1990). USGS Quadrangles were
used in identifying the streams within the McKee and Clear Creek's upper watersheds.
3.1. Channel Classification
The existing project streams have been impacted by outside forces such as livestock,
urbanization, and stabilization practices. Livestock on the property has unlimited access to all of
Clear Creek and the majority of McKee Creek - Reach 2. The livestock traffic within the two
reaches introduced excessive amounts of sediment into the streams, and caused the collapse and
destabilization of many of the stream banks. It appeared in some areas within the project reaches,
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 6 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
particularly in Clear Creek, that attempts were made to stabilize sections using rip rap or
relocated stream bed cobble and stone. The introduction of excess sediment from upstream
development within the drainage basins for both McKee and Clear Creeks influenced the existing
streambed material as well.
McKee Creek - Reach 1 classifies as an E4 stream type in the Rosgen system. McKee Creek -
Reach 1 is slightly entrenched, with high width/depth ratios, high sinuosity, and a gravel/cobble
bed material. McKee Creek - Reach 1 is in a more stable condition than the other two project
reaches mainly because its banks are not accessed by livestock, and it has more of an established
and undisturbed vegetated buffer. A modified Wolman reach-wide pebble count (Rosgen, 1994)
was performed on McKee Creek - Reach 1 in order to determine the streambed classification.
McKee Creek - Reach 2 classifies as an E4 stream type in the Rosgen system. McKee Creek -
Reach 2 is slightly entrenched, with low width/depth ratios, very high sinuosity, and a
gravel/cobble bed material. Due to the amount of sediment introduced to the project reach by
livestock access and adjacent development practices, the majority of the sediment material on the
streambed was coarse grained sand. Since there was so much fine sediment within the project
reach, a reach-wide pebble count was not performed. There was evidence below the layer of finer
sediments of some gravel and cobble; it is assumed that under normal/natural conditions that the
reach will have a relatively similar streambed as McKee Creek - Reach 1, hence the
gravel/cobble streambed classification.
Clear Creek classifies as an E/C5 stream type in the Rosgen system. Clear Creek is slightly
entrenched, with low to high width/depth ratios, low sinuosity, and a very coarse sand bed
material. Due the excessive degradation caused by livestock access, the reach dimensions varied
which resulted in a range of width/depth ratios from 5.8 to 12.8. Therefore the project reach
could be classified as either a Rosgen E or C stream type; more than likely without the livestock
influences the stream would classify as an E stream type. Due to the excessive amount of fine
sediment within Clear Creek, a reach-wide pebble count was not performed. A section of Clear
Creek upstream of the project site had a streambed that consisted of fine to very fine gravel;
although the upstream section was not stable, the streambed was in a more natural condition due
to the absence of livestock intrusion. There was also evidence below the layer of finer sediments
of some fine gravel within the project reach of Clear Creek. As a result, it is assumed that under
undisturbed conditions that the Clear Creek design reach will have a fine to very fine gravel
streambed.
3.2. Discharge (bankfull, trends)
Although the project reaches have started to become impacted by some urbanization, the overall
impervious cover within the project watersheds is still relatively low. Some residential
development is underway upstream of the Clear Creek project reach (only about 10% of the
drainage area), but the watershed as a whole is very rural. Urbanization is underway in the
McKee Creek watershed, particularly in the Mecklenburg County portions. However, the overall
impervious cover within the watershed is estimated between 10% and 12%. Physical habitat
degradation is generally considered to begin when the impervious cover within a drainage basin
starts to increase above the 10% threshold (CWP, 2003). The field bankfull indicators and the
HEC-RAS model confirm that McKee Creek should be treated as a rural system for the purpose
of bankfull discharge determination.
It is anticipated that additional run-off volume generated from development within the last five
years and in the future within the McKee Creek watershed has been and will continue to be
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 7 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
attenuated by the Mecklenburg County Storm Water Ordinance. The ordinance requires that
developments which exceed 24% built-upon area control the volume leaving the project site at
post-development for the 1-year, 24-hour storm, and that peak control be installed for the
appropriate storm frequency (i.e., 10, 25, 50 or 100-yr, 6-hr) as determined by the Storm Water
Administrator based on a downstream flood analysis. Mecklenburg County estimates that
controlling the 1-year, 24-hour volume achieves peak control for the 2-year, 6-hour storm
(Mecklenburg County, 2007); it is generally estimated that bankfull discharge is approximately
the 1.5-year storm. It should be noted that even though the stormwater structures implemented
upstream of the project reaches will probably limit increases in the peak discharges that are
experienced by the project site, there is still the possibility that some channel degradation caused
by future urbanization may occur. In some instances stormwater controls that attenuate flows can
cause receiving streams to become exposed to lower frequency flows for longer periods of time,
which can be just as erosive as increased peak flows (e.g., the McKee Creek project reach could
be exposed to the design bankfull flow for longer periods of time per each bankfull occurrence).
Furthermore, the implementation of sound stormwater management can only minimize the impact
to the project site from development in the upstream watershed. It is inevitable that the project
reaches will be subjected to the forces from an urbanizing watershed such as larger magnitude
peak flows, reduced lag times, more frequent bankfull events, and reduced baseflows. As
upstream urbanization continues, it is anticipated that the proposed design will maintain stability
through the use of structures which provide grade control and bank protection, an established
vegetative buffer, and energy dissipation through floodplain connectivity.
3.3. Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile)
The project reaches of McKee and Clear Creek are in moderately wide alluvial, low sloped
valleys, and have well developed floodplains. The described valley type generally indicates the
presence of Rosgen C and E type channels (Rosgen, 1996). The existing channels have been
classified as C and E type channels, and the proposed design channels are C type channels.
McKee Creek - Reach 1 has developed some pattern at the upstream portions of the reach (sta
0+00 to 10+00), and is in the process of developing more pattern throughout the reach (sta 16+00
to 20+00; sta 25+00 to 32+00). Overall the project has a relatively high sinuosity (1.28), but it
appears that some sections were straightened by past channelization practices (sta 13+00 to
16+00; sta 20+00 to 25+00). The majority of the reach is incised with bank height ratios that
range from 1.4 to 2.0, and has cross-sectional dimensions that maintain moderate width/depth
ratios that range from approximately 7 to 12 (sta 0+00 to 25+00). The cross-section dimension
for the section of the reach from station 25+00 to 33+00 has been impacted by excessive
deposition that appears to have resulted from backwater caused by a large tree that blocks the
channel (near sta 33+00) and some potential beaver activity; this section has very high
width/depth ratios that range from 10 to 44 (see Table 8). Besides the section that has
experienced deposition, the profile for the majority of the reach appears to be controlled by
bedrock in the channel bed (surveyed bedrock is shown on the existing site conditions sheets).
Due to the deposition area from sta 25+00 to 33+00, a large section of the profile is almost
completely flat from approximately station 18+50 to 25+00. This has resulted in a long pool
section that maintains stagnated water during normal flow conditions (see photo 432 in Appendix
1), and it acts as a sediment trap that accumulates fine sediments.
McKee Creek - Reach 2 has a well developed pattern throughout the reach. Overall the project
has a very high sinuosity (1.50), and in some instances the riffle sections flow in a direction that
are almost perpendicular to the valley flow (sta 6+00 to 6+50; sta 13+00 to 14+00). The majority
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 8 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
of the reach is slightly incised with bank height ratios that range from 1.0 to 1.2, and has cross-
sectional dimensions that maintain moderate width/depth ratios that average from approximately
8 to 10. As stated in previous sections the reach dimensions have been impacted by livestock
intrusion. The profile for the reach appears to be controlled by bedrock in the channel bed
(surveyed bedrock is shown on the existing site conditions sheets). The high sinuosity within the
reach has resulted in a relatively low slope for McKee Creek - Reach 2 (0.0018 ft/ft).
Clear Creek has very little developed pattern throughout the reach. Overall the project has a low
sinuosity (1.12). The majority of the reach is highly incised with bank height ratios that range
from 1.4 to 2.3, and has cross-sectional dimensions that maintain moderate width/depth ratios that
range from approximately 5.8 to 12.8. The reach dimensions have been extremely impacted by
livestock intrusion; the Clear Creek project reach appears to be frequently accessed by livestock.
The profile grade for the reach appears to be controlled by an existing culvert crossing (sta
11+00), the confluence with McKee Creek, and areas throughout the reach in which rip rap/ stone
has been added to the channel bed.
3.4. Channel Stability Assessment
For the purpose of describing the stability of McKee Creek - Reach 1, the project reach has been
divided into six sections. Section 1 of the reach is from station 0+00 to 7+50. Section 1 is more
sinuous and incised than the remainder of the reach. The majority of this section is laterally
unstable; vertical instability appears to be limited due to several bedrock outcroppings in the
channel bed. A visual inspection and the BEHI assessment of the section verify that degradation
is prevalent as a result of the lateral instability. Based on the existing conditions, it appears that
this section will continue eroding and depositing sediment before natural stability is achieved.
Section 2 of the reach is from station 7+50 to 16+00. Section 2 is relatively straight and stable
with low to moderate bank degradation and instability. This section does not seem to have any
severe lateral or vertical stability issues. Section 3 of the reach is from station 16+00 to 20+00.
Within this section McKee Creek is attempting to develop pattern. Although bedrock in the
channel bed has limited vertical instability, it has forced the creek to dissipate its energy through
lateral migration which has caused severe lateral instability in this section. Section 3 will
continue eroding before natural stability is achieved; parts of the section could possibly avulse if
not stabilized. Section 4 of the reach is from station 20+00 to 25+00. Section 4 is relatively
straight and stable due to backwater impacts produced by downstream deposition and potential
beaver activity. This section has very little bedform diversity; it is basically one long pool
section. Under normal flow conditions this section maintains a pool of stagnant water, and acts as
a sediment trap that collects fine sediment. Section 5 of the reach is from station 25+00 to 33+00.
Section 5 is unstable due to excessive deposition that appears to have been caused by the
backwater impacts from a large tree that lies across the channel near station 33+00. Large
amounts of coarse gravel and small cobble have been deposited in this section which has resulted
in very high width/depth ratios, and some areas have become braided as the channel attempts to
redevelop its dimension and pattern. With its high width/depth ratios and continued backwater
impacts, this section will continue depositing sediment and being unstable in the future. Also, it
is important to note that the backwater caused by the excessive amounts of deposition directly
impact the stagnant state of upstream section 4. Section 6 of the reach is from station 33+00 to
the bridge crossing at Peach Orchard Road. This section is straight and stable; it is more stable
than the other sections of McKee Creek - Reach 1. Section 6 will probably maintain lateral and
vertical stability under the current conditions.
McKee Creek - Reach 2 is very sinuous, and livestock access to the creek has caused instability
throughout the reach. Although bedrock in the channel bed has limited vertical instability, it has
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 9 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
forced the creek to dissipate its energy through lateral migration which has caused some lateral
instability in this reach. From station 1+00 to 6+00 the livestock traffic has caused some areas to
become overly wide which has resulted in mid channel bars and poor sediment transport. The
high sinuosity and low slope within the reach threatens to negatively impact the sediment
transport capacity and competency. The lateral instability and process of erosion and deposition
will continue before natural stability is achieved; especially if the livestock are not denied access
to the creek. The current bedform for the reach is riffle dominated (approximately 80%); the
majority of the pools have been caused by isolated debris jams.
Clear Creek has a low sinuosity, and livestock access to the creek has caused most of the
instability throughout the reach. Most of the Clear Creek reach is extremely incised and has low
width/depth ratios. There are signs throughout the reach that the creek is attempting to form
pattern; the lateral instability is very erosive due the bare creek banks which maintain little to no
vegetative cover. Even though the reach is mostly incised, further vertical stability issues appear
to be limited due to grade control features such as a culvert crossing, the confluence with McKee
Creek, and the use of rip rap/stone for bed stabilization. The lateral instability and process of
erosion and deposition will continue before natural stability is achieved; especially if the
livestock are not denied access to the creek. The current bedform for Clear Creek is riffle
dominated (approximately 70%), and the channel incision does not allow flood flows to access
the abandoned floodplain with natural regularity.
The degradation potential for the existing streams within the project site was estimated by
assessing their channel evolutionary state. The Watershed Assessment of River Stability &
Sediment Supply (WRASSS) model developed by David Rosgen was used to estimate the overall
risk rating for their degradation potential (Rosgen, 2006). Both the Clear Creek and McKee
Creek - Reach 2 project reaches are in the succession scenario in which the channel is unstable
because it is evolving from an "E" toward a "C" type channel. The designated risk rating for this
scenario is "moderate", and the degradation potential score for both reaches is on the higher end
of the "moderate" range. The unstable upper portions of McKee Creek - Reach 1 are also
evolving from an "E" toward a "C" type channel. The unstable lower portion for McKee Creek -
Reach 1 has a very high width to depth ratio; it appears that this section is evolving from a "C"
toward a "D" type channel. The degradation potential score for the unstable sections of McKee
Creek - Reach 1 range from the middle to higher end of the "moderate" ranking. According to
the WRASSS documentation; "The moderate risk assessment allows the user to appropriately
design measures that offset adverse consequences of specific land use practices/conditions. The
resultant measures can be recommendations for stabilization, enhancement, resolution of
conditions causing impairment, and/or restoration. Monitoring should be conducted to ensure
that stream processes and/or land treatment are responding to mitigation measures
implemented. " The proposed project design will use stabilization and enhancement practices
along McKee Creek, and restoration along Clear Creek. The stream processes for the constructed
channel improvements will then be monitored.
3.5. Bankfull Verification
During the survey of the project site an attempt was made to locate bankfull field indicators on all
of the project reaches. Field identification of bankfull discharge was very difficult due to the
extensive impacts to the project reaches. However, a complete compilation and comparison of all
the bankfull indicators plotted along the reach profiles and cross-sections made it possible to
estimate bankfull discharges for all the project reaches with some confidence. Bankfull indicators
were apparent on all the project reaches, but the reliability of some was questionable due to the
degraded and impacted condition of the reaches. For McKee Creek - Reach 2 and Clear Creek
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 10 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
the influences of livestock traffic along the stream banks made determining field indicators
challenging. For McKee Creek - Reach 1 backwater impacts from a large debris jam and
alterations potentially made by beaver activity also made determining field indicators
challenging.
In order to verify the bankfull discharges for the project reaches, hydraulic models were
developed in HEC-RAS (see Tables 8 - 10). The cross-sections for the models were produced
from the field topographic survey. Bankfull discharges were estimated for each project reach
using a Mannings single section analysis for all of the surveyed riffle cross-sections. The
estimated bankfull discharge was then entered into the HEC-RAS model for each project reach in
order to verify the bankfull stage and riffle cross-sectional area. In some locations the HEC-RAS
output showed a water surface elevation that was either higher or lower than the surveyed
bankfull indicators, but overall the model appears to make an adequate analysis and verification
of bankfull flow through the project reaches. The relationship of the project reaches' estimated
bankfull discharges and cross-sectional areas compare favorably to the same relationships from
the surveyed reference reach and the NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve (see Tables 4a - c).
3.6. Vegetation
Large portions of the site have been altered from their natural state into pasture land. Most of
which were probably dominated by the Piedmont Alluvial Forest type (Schafale and Weakley,
1990). With the excessive grazing by livestock, this community has been invaded by various
exotic plant species (e.g. Eulaha viminea and Rosa palustris).
Tree species associated with this plant community consists of river birch (Betula nigra),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
hackberry/sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), black walnut (Juglans nigra), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). The herb layer is comprised of
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Jack in the pulpit (Arisaema
triphyllum), bearsfoot (Polymnia uvedalia), and wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia). The soil type
associated with this community type is typically a highly fertile alluvial soil. This soil type
develops from multiple flooding events in which small disturbances occur and sediment is
deposited in the floodplain, restoring the fertility of the soil.
4.0 Reference Streams
A section of Dixon Branch which is located in Mecklenburg County was used for the project
reference reach. The reference reach is located within the Catawba River Basin; the reference
stream's upper watershed boundary is the dividing line between the Catawba and Yadkin
drainage basins. The reference reach has a valley slope, bed material, and watershed character
that is similar to the project reaches. Attempts to find reference reaches closer to the project site
failed. Dennis Testerman, the Senior Resource Conservation Specialist for Cabarrus County, was
contacted to help locate potential reference reaches in the area. Mr. Testerman stated that he has
been contacted about locating reference reaches on many occasions, but to his knowledge there
are not any stream reaches worthy of this designation in the area. The majority of the streams
have been disturbed in some way.
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 11 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
4.1. Watershed Characterization
The watershed boundaries and drainage area and vicinity map for the reference reach are shown
on Figures 5 and 6. The Dixon Branch drainage area at the downstream survey limits is 0.55 mil
(350 acres). The drainage basin area was determined using Mecklenburg County topography in
GIS. Like the project watersheds, the Dixon Branch drainage basin is partially developed and the
areas adjacent to the reach are fairly rural. The Interstate 77 (I-77) corridor crosses through the
basin, and most of the upper reaches of the basin is comprised of North Mecklenburg High
School. The watershed is urbanizing and due to the presence of the I-77 corridor, development
will probably continue at a rapid rate. The majority of the undeveloped property consists of
larger tracts of land that is currently either pasture or forest lands. The upstream portion of the
reference reach watershed is more developed than the project watersheds; the percent of
impervious cover for the entire watershed is approximately 20%.
4.2. Channel Classification
Dixon Branch classifies as an E4 stream type in the Rosgen system. Dixon Branch is slightly
entrenched, with low width/depth ratios, relatively high sinuosity, and a medium sized gravel bed
material.
4.3. Discharge (bankfull, trends)
Field identification of bankfull stage was determined during the reference reach survey by using
the bankfull indicators along Dixon Branch. The most consistent bankfull indicators were
significant breaks in slope, the highest scour line, and in very few instances it was the top of the
bank. A complete compilation and comparison of all the bankfull indicators plotted along the
reach profile and cross-sections made it possible to estimate bankfull discharge for the surveyed
reach of Dixon Branch with some confidence.
4.4. Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile)
Dixon Branch has a relatively well developed pattern throughout the reach. Overall the project
has a high sinuosity (1.30). The majority of the reach is slightly incised with bank height ratios
that range from 1.1 to 1.5, and has cross-sectional dimensions that maintain low width/depth
ratios that range from approximately 5.4 to 10.8. The profile for the reach appears to be
controlled by some bedrock in the channel bed and the coarse materials in the riffle sections. The
slope for the reach is moderately flat, but steeper than the project reaches (0.0055 ft/ft).
4.5. Channel Stability and Assessment
Overall Dixon Branch is a very stable reach that provides good habitat and bedform diversity.
The coarse riffles and some presence of bedrock keep the profile stable, and the established
pattern and vegetated buffer maintain lateral stability throughout the reach. It appears that
impacts from upstream development have caused some of the streams bank slopes to start to
move towards a slightly more vertical state. Also, the irregularities in flow direction and velocity
caused by fallen trees in the creek and bedrock outcroppings have caused some isolated areas of
bank erosion.
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 12 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
4.6. Bankfull Verification
The relationship of the project reaches' estimated bankfull discharges and cross-sectional areas
compare favorably to the same relationships from the projects reaches and the NC Piedmont
Rural Regional Curve. Although the reference reach has started to become impacted by some
urbanization, the overall impervious cover within Dixon Branch's watershed is still relatively
low. The field bankfull indicators confirm that the reference reach should be treated as a rural
system for the purpose of bankfull discharge determination.
4.7. Vegetation
The plant community located adjacent to Dixon Branch most closely resembles a Piedmont
Alluvial Forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). However, the species composition differs slightly
from an undisturbed piedmont Alluvial Forest. This variation is likely due a timber harvest,
which has allowed shade intolerant species such as tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and red
maple (Acer rubrum) to dominate, rather than river birch (Betula nigra), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentahs), commonly found in an alluvial forest.
Plant species observed in the riparian zone along Dixon Creek included the following canopy
trees: red maple, sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifua), green ash (Fraxinus pennysylvanica), tulip
poplar, red oak (Quercus falcata), American beech (Fagus grandifolia). The mid-story was
comprised of musclewood (Carpinus carohniana), red cedar (Juniperus virgintana), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), and American holly (Ilex opaca). Also noted was the presence of the invasive
Chinese privette and Japanese honeysuckle. The soil type associated with this community type is
typically a highly fertile alluvial soil (i.e. Chewalca). This soil type develops from multiple
flooding events in which small disturbances occur and sediment is deposited in the floodplain,
restoring the fertility of the soil.
5.0 Proiect Site Restoration Plan
The proposed project restoration includes enhancement (Level I and Level II) practices along
McKee Creek and full stream restoration (Priority I) of Clear Creek. The Clear Creek project
reach has been so severely degraded and altered by the unlimited access to the stream by
livestock that its condition warrants restoration of its dimension, pattern, profile, and vegetated
buffer in order for it to achieve the project goals and objectives. McKee Creek has several
sections that are relatively stable, but maintain a limited riparian buffer. These more stable
sections of McKee Creek will be improved by re-establishing portions of the vegetated buffer
through stream enhancement (Level II) restoration. Other sections of McKee Creek, including all
of Reach 2, that are unstable and degrading will require some restoration of the dimension and/or
profile in order to achieve a more stable condition. These less stable sections of McKee Creek
will be improved through stream enhancement (Level I) practices. The target community along
the project site for the vegetated buffer establishment and improvements is the Piedmont alluvial
forest.
The property owner currently uses portions of McKee Creek and all of Clear Creek as a water
source for his livestock; the livestock have unlimited access to the creeks in these areas. As a
result, the Cabarrus County Soil and Water Conservation District will be providing design and
construction services for livestock exclusion fencing and alternative water sources.
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 13 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
5.1. Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The existing stream conditions within the project area are characterized by excess sedimentation,
channel incision, bank degradation, and limited riparian buffer. Also, livestock have unlimited
access to all of Clear Creek and a portion of the lower reach of McKee Creek, this has
significantly contributed to the instability and poor water quality of the project reaches. The
project design goals are to restore through stream enhancement (Level I and Level II) McKee
Creek, and to restore Clear Creek (Priority I restoration). In order to achieve the design goals, the
following objectives have been identified:
¦ Improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, restricting livestock access to the
creeks, and re-establishing the riparian buffer;
¦ Stabilize McKee Creek through the use of in-stream structures and pattern re-alignment
in selected areas;
¦ Restore the dimension, pattern, and profile of Clear Creek;
¦ Improve the floodplain functionality of Clear Creek by matching floodplain elevation
with bankfull stage;
¦ Improve the wildlife habitat functions of the site through riparian buffer establishment,
improved stream bedform diversity, and improved floodplain functionality.
¦ Protect the site through a permanent conservation easement along the project reaches.
In order to determine if the project design successfully achieves the objectives listed above,
monitoring will be performed on the as-built condition for 5-years. The success of the design
streams overall stability and functionality will be determined through cross-section and
longitudinal surveys, pebble counts, and photo reference sites. Changes to the physical cross-
section and/or longitudinal measurements will be evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition. The success of the buffer establishment objective
will be measured through photo reference sites, plant survival plots, live stake counts, and tree
counts.
5.1.1. Designed Channel Classification
The majority of the Clear Creek design will involve the construction of a new meandering
channel; most of the new channel will be placed in the natural low point of the valley. The
majority of the design for the upstream section of Clear Creek (first approximately 400 ft of
channel) will maintain the existing alignment; except for one severely degraded bend section near
the property that will be straightened and stabilized. Due to the established trees, existing
channel incision, and potential hydraulic trespass issues, designing a meandering channel was not
a feasible option in this upstream section. The design will also maintain the existing channel
alignment for the lower section of Clear Creek in order to preserve the existing forested buffer
(from near the McKee Creek confluence to approximately 200 ft upstream). The restored Clear
Creek stream type will be a Rosgen "C" channel. The "C" type stream results in a more
conservative design cross-section that has a higher width/depth ratio or flatter more stable
channel side-slopes than the "E" type reference reach. It is extremely challenging to maintain
stability in a newly constructed channel that has a low width/depth ratio like an "E" type channel;
the "C" type channel design allows the use of a higher and more stable width/depth ratio.
Generally the "C" type channel that is designed will begin to narrow and take on the
characteristics of the "E" type channel once vegetation has become established.
The design dimension and profile criteria for the Clear Creek design are based on a combination
of the reference reach parameters, the project bankfull dimensions, ratios provided by the Army
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 14 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Project Manual, and the NC
Piedmont Rural Regional Curve (Exhibit 3 shows curve comparison). A comparison of the
bankfull cross-sectional dimensions determined from the reference reach, project site channel
surveys, and the site HEC-RAS hydraulic models relative to the NC Piedmont Rural Regional
Curve showed a correlation with other Piedmont streams. This convergence of data provides
confidence that the hydraulic geometry relationships used for the Clear Creek design are similar
to other stable and properly functioning streams within the same physiographic region.
The design pattern criteria are based on a combination of the reference parameters and the ACOE
Manual. Most of the pattern ratios used in the design are within the range of the higher more
conservative ACOE values. In comparison to the ACOE values, the reference reach consistently
has lower and less conservative pattern ratios due to its dense and established vegetated buffer
which provides stability. The ACOE Manual's ratios are based on more of a design condition, or
a newly constructed channel without an established vegetated buffer (see Table 4-a, b, and c for
the design parameters). Understanding this relationship between the ACOE calculated and
reference reach field measured ratios is important when determining the final design criteria.
The proposed Clear Creek design will allow stream flows larger than bankfull to spread onto the
floodplain, dissipating flow energies and reducing stress on streambanks. The energy dissipation
of the design is further discussed and demonstrated in Section 5.2.2. In-stream structures will be
used throughout the reach to control streambed grade, protect banks, and provide bedform
diversity for habitat development. Rock cross-vane structures will be needed at the downstream
end of the Clear Creek design in order to "step" the restored stream down to the existing invert of
the McKee Creek confluence. The streambanks will also be stabilized with a combination of
erosion control matting and the planting techniques outlined in Section 5.4.1.
For the sections of McKee Creek that the pattern and/or dimension will be restored, the stream
type used will be a Rosgen "C" channel. The design dimension, profile, and pattern criteria are
based on the same procedures discussed in the above Clear Creek design paragraphs, but due to a
variance in their watershed sizes the reference reach was not used when determining the McKee
Creek design parameters. When possible the compiled design parameters were used during the
McKee Creek design. However, since only certain pieces or sections of McKee Creek were
restored, the design tie-in points of the upstream and downstream portions of the existing stream
usually dictated the design profile, pattern, and some of the dimension parameters.
In-stream structures will be used selectively throughout the McKee Creek reaches to control
streambed grade, protect banks, and provide bedform diversity for habitat development. Section
5.2.2 further justifies and explains the necessity of restoring certain sections of McKee Creek in
order to improve its sediment transport capabilities. Where restoration practices are used on
McKee Creek the streambanks will also be stabilized with a combination of erosion control
matting and the planting techniques outlined in Section 5.4.1.
5.1.2. Target Buffer Communities
The target community along Clear Creek and Mckee Creek is the Piedmont alluvial forest, as
described by Weakley and Schafale in "Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina (1990)". The canopy in this type of forest is a mixture of mesophytic and bottomland
trees such as: river birch (Betula nigra), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), hackberry/sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), black walnut (Juglans nigra),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 15 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
5.2. Sediment Transport Analysis
5.2.1. Methodology
A reach-wide pebble count on McKee Creek resulted in a median particle size of 49 mm, which
results in a classification for the creek as a very coarse gravel bed stream. As previously stated in
Section 3.1 the same design bed characteristics were assumed for both of the McKee Creek
project reaches. Due to McKee Creek's classification as a gravel bed stream the design sections
were checked for sediment competency, or the stream's ability to move particles of a given size.
An aggradation analysis was done on both the existing and design conditions, the required depth
and slope needed to transport the largest particle of the riffle subpavement for both conditions
was then compared. The methodology for calculating critical dimensionless shear stress and
required depth and slope needed to transport the largest particle of the riffle subpavement is from
Rosgen's suggested sediment transport competency procedures (Rosgen 2001). The collection of
the stream bed pavement and subpavement samples was done using procedures similar to those
described by Bunte and Abt (2001). McKee Creek's existing flow conditions used to analyze the
sediment transport competency were determined from the McKee Creek HEC-RAS bankfull
models (see Tables 8 and 9 for the output).
As previously stated in Section 3.1 the Clear Creek project reach should be classified as a sand
bed channel; a bulk sample taken along the project reach showed the median particle size to be
coarse sand (D50 = 1.2 mm). Some fine gravel was present below the fine sediments along the
project reach, and the stream bed consisted of fine gravel upstream of the project reach. It is
probable that once the design condition becomes stable and the impacts of livestock intrusion is
alleviated, that the channel bed may consist of fine gravels. However, for purposes of this
analysis Clear Creek has been treated as a sand bed stream due to the current presence of fine
sediments and the probability of sediment inflow from upstream development that will likely
impact the design reach. Furthermore, samples of the fine gravels in the streambed showed that
they were on the borderline between very coarse sand and very fine gravels (D50 approximately
3.0 mm).
The sediment transport capacity was checked for the Clear Creek design. Sediment transport
capacity refers to the stream's ability to move a mass of sediment past a cross section per unit
time; stream power is often used to describe capacity. For the purposes of this analysis the
techniques described by Nanson and Cooke (1992) were used to calculate stream power (specific
stream power in W/mz). The stream power for selected existing cross-sections was compared to
the stream power for the design condition cross-sections. Also, the Copeland Method used for
stable channel design within HEC-RAS was used to assess whether the design cross-section
dimension would aggrade or degrade. Stability curves comparing slope to base width and slope
to channel depth were developed using the HEC-RAS design function.
5.2.2. Calculations and Discussion
Tables 11 and 12 display the sediment competency calculation results for McKee Creek, and
Exhibits 1 and 2 display the sediment capacity calculation results for Clear Creek. The existing
conditions cross-section numbers correspond with the Existing Site Condition plansheets (sheets
B - G).
As stated previously in this report, since only certain pieces or sections of McKee Creek were
restored, the design tie-in points of the upstream and downstream portions of the existing stream
usually dictated the design profile, pattern, and some of the dimension parameters. This should
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 16 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
be considered when reviewing the sediment transport data for McKee Creek; sometimes physical
constraints allow the designer to only improve the existing condition, not necessarily correct it
altogether.
A sediment transport assessment of the upstream portions of McKee Creek - Reach 1 shows that
the existing stream is slightly degrading (the required bankfull mean depth and slope are less than
the actual measured values; Table 11). A comparison of the design to the existing conditions
shows that the design cross-section dimension and slope will probably lessen the stream
degradation in this section. The same assessment of the downstream portions of the reach
estimate that the existing stream is definitely aggrading or depositing sediment (the required
bankfull mean depth and slope are much higher than the actual measured values; Table 11). A
field assessment of McKee Creek - Reach 1 corroborates these findings. This is particularly true
in the section from existing station 25+00 to 33+00 (XSC 46, 7, and 8) where the channel
dimension has become overly wide with high width/depth ratios (see Table 8 between XSC 46
and 8). A comparison of the design to the existing conditions shows that the design cross-section
dimension and slope will improve the streams competency in this aggrading section. This
sediment transport analysis for the section from station 25+00 to 33+00 is an important
component in justifying the need to redesign the dimension and profile through the section. The
negative impacts caused by the excessive deposition in this area to the overall stream
functionality must be considered when deciding on the design action.
A sediment transport assessment of McKee Creek - Reach 2 shows that the existing stream is
aggrading (the required bankfull mean depth and slope are greater than the actual measured
values; Table 11). This is mainly due to the high sinuosity, low channel slope, and cross-section
widening caused by the livestock traffic along the banks. Also, the sediment data collected for
McKee Creek - Reach 1 was used for Reach 2, this was necessary due to the excessive amount of
fine sediment within the reach due to livestock access. Accurate and representative pavement and
subpavement samples taken in Reach 2 would probably not demonstrate such a drastic level of
aggradation within the reach; as a whole the reach is degrading more than it is aggrading.
However, the sediment transport information and methodology was necessary in order to
demonstrate the differences between the existing and design conditions. A comparison of the
design to the existing conditions shows that the design cross-section dimension and increased
slope will help improve the sediment transport competency throughout McKee Creek - Reach 2.
The magnitude in which the required mean depth and slope is higher than the actual values is
much lower for the design than the existing condition.
A sediment transport analysis was performed on Clear Creek to determine if the stream
restoration design would create a stable sand-bed channel that does not excessively aggrade or
degrade over time. The degradation potential of the existing stream was compared to the design
stream through the use of stream power (W/M2). As a check, the calculated stream power values
for the existing and proposed conditions were compared with values for similar stream and valley
types described by Nanson and Croke (1992). The calculated values for Clear Creek compared
well with the similar B3b valley type; sands and minor gravel beds in wide alluvial valleys (in
their study the range of stream powers were 10 to 60 W/M2). Exhibit 1 demonstrates how the
existing channel experiences higher sediment transport rates and specific stream power than the
design channel. The design channel will allow flows greater than bankfull to spread out on the
floodplain, thus dissipating the excess energy. The maximum stage that is plotted along the X-
axis on Exhibit 1 is the stage that will be reached within the floodplain cross-section during the
approximate 10-year storm event (Q = 340 cfs). It is evident from the comparison that the incised
existing channel will be subject to much higher and erosive energies than the design channel
during a given storm duration.
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 17 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
It is clear from the above assessment that the Clear Creek design channel will be subjected to
much lower and less erosive stream power than the existing channel. However, this does not
answer the question of whether or not the design channel will adequately transport sediment
during the bankfull flow condition. A study to understand the design channel's sediment
transport capacity, or ability to move a mass of sediment past a cross-section per unit time, is also
necessary. Exhibit 2 shows stability curves for Clear Creek that were developed within the HEC-
RAS stable channel design function (Copeland Method). The curves compare channel slope to
bottom width and channel slope to depth. Theoretically, values plotted above the curve would
produce degradation and values plotted below the curve would produce aggradation. The design
channel's bottom width (5.9 ft) and depth (2.2) were plotted against the design slope (0.0039) on
the curves. The data point plotted close to the curves, but slightly to the degradation side.
Having the design channel slightly more erosive than depositional is preferred. This shows that
the channel can adequately move its bed load, the potential for slight degradation will be
controlled through the use of in-stream structures and established vegetation.
5.3. HEC-RAS Analysis
The output from the HEC-RAS analysis for the project flood study is shown in Appendix 7. The
flood study for McKee Creek shows that the proposed design condition will produce a decrease to
the 100-year water surface elevation when compared to the existing condition. Since the design
condition proposes to remove a large portion of the deposited sediment within the existing
channel, the proposed design will result in a substantial decrease to the 100-year water surface
elevation. Since a large portion of the Clear Creek design will be priority I, the design condition
will cause a slight increase in the 100-year water surface elevation when compared to the incised
existing condition. However, the increase in 100-year water surface elevation limits will not
exceed the upstream property limits.
A separate HEC-RAS analysis was done on all of the project reaches in order to model the
bankfull flow condition. The bankfull model outputs are shown on Tables 8 - 10.
5.3.1. No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR
Clear Creek is impacted from the 100-year backwater elevation from McKee Creek, but it is not a
mapped FEMA detailed floodplain. The section of McKee Creek within the project limits is
located in a FEMA detailed floodplain. Stream enhancement (Level I) is proposed on sections of
the project reach of McKee Creek. Some of the existing sections along McKee Creek project
reaches have experienced channel deposition since the cross-sections were surveyed for the
original FEMA flood model. Since our proposed design will remove some of the deposited
sediment, the proposed 100-year water surface elevation is less than the corrected effective/
existing condition 100-year water surface elevation (decrease greater than 0.1 ft). As a result, it is
anticipated that a FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be required at the conclusion of
the project's construction; the LOMR will be submitted by the NC EEP. Due to the excessive
deposition, the majority of the corrective effective/ existing conditions 100-year water surface
elevations are higher than the duplicate effective elevations. The local floodplain administrator
for Cabarrus County was contacted (Mike Byrd). Mr. Byrd stated that what he required for us to
show compliance was verification that our design would not cause hydraulic trespass issues to the
adjacent properties (comparing proposed condition to the existing condition). The proposed
design condition meets Mr. Byrd's standards for compliance. However, the NC EEP is mandated
by the State of North Carolina to comply with the FEMA rules and regulations which currently
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 18 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
state that if the proposed condition causes more than a 0.1 ft decrease when compared to the
corrected effective/existing condition then a LOMR is required.
5.3.2. Hydrologic Trespass
Hydraulic modeling with HEC-RAS has confirmed that hydraulic trespass will not be an issue on
the McKee Creek Project. Hydraulic trespass was considered during the design of all the project
stream reaches; the designs were altered in order to avoid trespass issues.
5.4. Natural Plant Community Restoration
5.4.1. Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
Plant selection is based on species native to the area and chosen to mimic existing plant material
observed on the project and reference site. A mixture of bare root seedlings, live stakes, and a
permanent seeding mixture of grasses and forbs will be used to revegatate the area. Refer to
Table 7 for the proposed vegetation species, and the Design Sheets for the designated planting
areas.
In general, hardwoods will consist of bare root vegetation planted at a target density of 680 stems
per acre, spaced on an 8' by 8' grid. Selected species shall be planted according to their wetness
tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting areas. Bare root trees should be planted
during dormancy and installed within two days of being transported to the site. Soil within the
target areas shall be disked and loosened prior to planting. Trees shall be planted manually using
a planting or dibble bar, mattock, or other approved method for installation. Planting holes must
be of sufficient depth to allow proper root development without "J-rooting," and soil will be
loosely compacted around the trees.
In areas prone to erosion, including steep banks, live stakes will be used. Stakes shall be installed
randomly with respect to species, 2' to 3' apart using triangular spacing along the outside of
bends and 4' to 6' apart using triangular spacing along the banks of straight riffle sections
(maximum of 20% Black Willow). Stakes shall be selectively placed on existing vegetated
stream banks. Live stake material should be dormant, but have the presence of young buds and
green bark. Stakes should be F to 2" diameter, 2' to 3' in length, with angled bottoms and cut
flush on the top with buds oriented upward. Stakes shall be installed either by hammering into
the ground with a rubber mallet or by excavating a hole and slipping the stake into it. Stakes shall
be tamped in perpendicular to the slope with 4/5 of the stake installed below ground surface. A
minimum of two buds must be visible above ground surface. Once installed, soil shall be firmly
compacted around the stake and a fresh cut be made on the live stake to promote end growth and
vigor. No split stakes are to be used and stakes that split during installation should be replaced.
A permanent seed mixture of native grasses and forbs shall be applied to all disturbed areas of the
site. Separate mixtures are provided for stream banks and for flood plain areas. The permanent
seed mixture for stream banks shall be applied in order to provide rapid stabilization of
constructed stream banks and steep slopes. The permanent seed mixture for floodplains shall be
applied to all other disturbed areas, outside of existing tree lines, to provide rapid growth of
herbaceous ground cover with a high biological habitat value.
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 19 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
5.4.2. On-site invasive Species Management
Non-native invasive plants can limit the native plant communities' ability to regenerate and be
self-dependent. These non-native invasive plants (i.e. Multiflora rose) develop into a dense
ground that prohibits the natural regeneration of natural trees, shrubs, and forbs.
The non-native specie, multiflora rose, is present along the banks of McKee Creek. As part of
this restoration plan it is recommended that these areas be treated with an herbicide application.
The following table indicates the specific herbicide, amount, and time of year it should be
applied. The following herbicide applications are foliar sprays which should completely coat the
foliage of the target plant. Repeated applications may be required to completely eradicate the
target specie from the restoration site.
Herbicides

Herbicide Amount per 3 gallons of water
with surfactant
Time of Year
Escort 0.2 dry ounces April - June
ArsenalAC 4 ounces Aug. - Oct.
*Glyphosate 8 ounces May - Oct.
* Herbicide is not soil active and will not negatively affect surrounding plant
species. Multiple applications may be required.
6.0 Performance Criteria
In order to determine if the design streams have successfully achieved the objectives of providing
proper channel function and increased habitat quality, monitoring will be performed on the as-
built conditions for 5-years. The success criteria for the restoration project will follow the rules
as presented in the USACOE Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003). It must be demonstrated that
the design channel has been subjected to the channel forming discharge. Therefore, two bankfull
events must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period, and the bankfull events must
occur in separate years.
6.1. Streams
The success of the design streams overall stability will be monitored through cross-section and
longitudinal surveys, pebble counts, and photo reference sites. The photo reference sites will be
used to document success by visually verifying that no substantial aggradation, degradation, or
bank erosion has occurred during the 5-year monitoring period. Some photo reference sites will
also be developed prior to channel construction in order to provide a baseline when comparing
before-and-after conditions of the streams. The stream parameters that are physically measured
during the monitoring period, such as cross-section surveys, longitudinal surveys, and pebble
counts, will be used to confirm the project's channel stability. A successfully designed channel
that is stable will show minimal evidence of down-cutting, deposition, bank erosion, or an
increase in naturally occurring sands or finer substrate materials. Changes to the physical cross-
section and/or longitudinal measurements should be evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition.
If substantial aggradation, degradation, bank erosion, and/or evidence of other forms of instability
occur, remedial actions will be planned, approved, and implemented.
McKee Creek-Draft Restoration Plan 20 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
All of the above measures will be monitored for the sections of McKee Creek that have been
restored through stream enhancement (Level I) measures, and for all of the Clear Creek design
reach. Only photo reference sites will be used for monitoring for the sections of McKee Creek
that have been restored through stream enhancement (Level II), no physical measurements will be
taken in these areas.
6.2. Vegetation
The success of the implemented vegetation plan will be monitored through the photo reference
sites, plant survival plots, live stake counts, and tree counts. The location and number of
vegetation monitoring plots will be determined during the as-built survey. In order for the photo
reference sites to document success, they must show at least 75% coverage in the plots. A
successful vegetation plot will verify survival and growth of at least 320 stems per acre through
year 3, then 10% mortality allowed in year 4 (288 stems per acre), and an additional 10%
mortality in year 5 for 260 stems per acre through year 5.
6.3. Schedule / Reporting
An as-built report will be prepared and used as a baseline for all subsequent monitoring. The
monitoring and monitoring reports will begin 1 year following completion of the as-built report,
and continue for years 2, 3, 4, and 5. A BEHI assessment will also be completed in year 5. The
as-built and monitoring reports will include:
1. Executive Summary/ Project Abstract;
2. Project Background Section which will include project objectives, structure, location and
setting, and history and background;
3. Project drawings that shall include vegetation and stream issue areas, plans include a
Monitoring Plan View and Current Condition Plan View;
4. The Project Condition and Monitoring Results which will include details of the stream
and vegetation assessment;
5. Methodology Section;
6. An Exhibit/ Tables Section that will include such tables as the Project Structure Table,
Project Activity and Reporting History, Project Contact Table, Project Background
Table, Hydrological (Bankfull) Verifications, BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates,
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment, Baseline Morphology and
Hydraulic Summary, and Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary;
An Appendix Section which will include Appendix A - Vegetation Raw Data and
Appendix B - Geomorphologic Raw Data.
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 21 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
7.0 References
Bunte, K., and S. Abt. 2001. Sampling surface and subsurface particle-size distributions in
wadable gravel- and cobble-bed streams for analyses in sediment transport, hydraulics, and
streambed monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-74. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems.
Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. 141 pp.
Common Wetland Plants of North Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Water Quality, August 1997.
Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species
of Concern, and Candidate Species, Cabarrus County, NC. July 2007.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
Fridell John A. "Carolina Heelsplitter" U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
July 2007 <http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html>.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R.
Everhart, and R.E. Smith, 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and J.P.
Potyondy. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Lanfear, K. J. (1990). A fast algorithm for automatically computing Strahler stream order. Water
Resources Bulletin, 26(6), 977 - 981.
Lower Yadkin River Basin Local Watershed Planning (Phase II) Report, Rocky River Basin -
Preliminary Findings and Recommendations (Reedy Creek Local Watershed - HU
03040105010050). December 10, 2003. Prepared for: NC-WRP; Prepared by: MACTEC
Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
Miller, James H. 2003. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests - A Field Guide for
Identification and Control. Southern Research Station; Asheville, NC.
Mecklenburg County, Post-Construction Stormwater Ordinance. June 30, 2007: 20-22.
Nanson, G.C. and J.C. Croke, 1992. A Genetic Classification of Floodplains. Geomorphology 4
(1992); 459-486.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2003b. Division of Water
Quality. Biological Assessment Unit. Biological Monitoring of Coddle Creek/Rocky River
Watersheds (Yadkin Subbasin 11), Wetlands Restoration Program Studies, July 2003. November
10, 2003.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2004. Division of Water
Quality. Modeling and TMDL Unit. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired
Waters List (2004 Integrated 305 (b) and 303 (d) Report. Public Review Draft.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General-303d.htm
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 22 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
Riparian Forest Buffer Design and Maintenance, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Forest Service, June 2005
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. and H.L. Silvey. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books,
Fort Collins, CO.
Rosgen, D. L. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate
Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference,
Vol. 2, pp. II - 9-15, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV
Rosgen, D. L. 2001. A Stream Channel Stability Assessment Methodology. Proceedings of the
Federal Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV. March, 2001.
Rosgen, D.L. September, 2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability & Sediment Supply
(WRASSS). http://www.epa.gov/warsss/index.htm.
"Schweintz's Sunflower" U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 2007
<http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html>
Schafale, Michael P. and Weakley, Alan S. Classification Of The Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina National Heritage Program; Division of Parks
and Recreation; N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1990.
Soar, Philip J. and Thorne, Colin R. September, 2001. United States Army Corps of Engineers -
Engineer Research and Development Center/ Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory (USACOE-
ERDC/CHL CR-01-1). Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers. Washington, DC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, April 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines Manual.
United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN-
RS-4.1, 1997.
Watershed Management Plans & Recommendations - Lower Yadkin/ Upper Rocky River Basin
Local Watershed Planning (Phase Two); Cabarrus, Iredell, Rowan, and Mecklenburg Counties.
November 30, 2004. Prepared for: NC-EEP; Prepared by: MACTEC Engineering and
Consulting, Inc. (http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Clarke-Creek/wmp_r04-15-05.pdf).
Wolman, M.G., 1954. A Method of Sampling Course River-Bed Material. Transactions of
American Geophysical Union 35: 951-956.
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 23 of 23 08115108
(EEP # D070635)
8.0 Tables
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
Table 1. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Project Number D070635 (McKee Creek)
Restoration Reach ID Station Range Restoration Type Priority Approach Existing Linear Designed Linear Comment
Footage Footage
McKee Reach 1 10+00 - 25+00 Enhancement II P4 15001f 15001f The is a mix of P2 and
P4
d
i
t
d b
th
as
es
gna
e
y
e
McKee Reach 1 25+00 - 29+00 Enhancement I P2 4931f 4001f stationing.
McKee Reach 1 29+00 - 46+40 Enhancement II P4 17401f 17401f
McKee Reach 1 Totals 3,733 if 3,6401f
The reach is a mix of
P2 and P3, but is
McKee Reach 2 10+00 - 22+86 Enhancement I P2 8471f 6961f mostly dominated by
P2. Includes 2001f of
channel relocation.
Includes 1,351 if of
Clear Creek 10+69 - 27+76 Restoration P1 1,513 if 1,641 if channel relocation
Project Totals 6,0931f 5,977 if
Table 2. Drainage Areas
Project Number D07063S (McKee Creek)
Reach Drainage Area (Acres)
McKee Creek - Reach 1 (at Peach Orchard Rd.) 4,131
McKee Creek - Reach 2 (at downstream project limits) 4,214
Clear Creek (at confluence with McKee Creek) 635
Table 3. Land Use of Watersheds
Project Number D07063S (McKee Creek)
McKee Creek - Reach 1 (at Peach Orchard Rd.)
Land Use Acreage Percentage
Single-Fam 2,150 52%
Woods 1,154 28%
Commercial 114 3%
Govt-Inst 73 2%
Warehouse 76 2%
Pasture 565 14%
McKee Creek - Reach 2 (at downstream project limits)
Land Use Acreage Percentage
Single-Fam 2,147 51%
Woods 1,166 28%
Commercial 113 3%
Govt-Inst 73 2%
Warehouse 76 2%
Pasture 640 15%
Clear Creek (at confluence with McKee Creek)
Land Use Acreage Percentage
Pasture 60 9%
Woods 469 74%
Single-Fam 106 17%
Table 4-a. Morphological Table - Project Number #D07063S (McKee Creek - Reach 1)
Existing Conditions
McKee Creek - RI Design Conditions
McKee Creek - RI Other Reference
ACOE Manual
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 4131 ac - 6.45 sq. mi. 4131 ac - 6.45 sq. mi.
Stream Type (Rosgen) E4 C4
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 340 340
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 68.2 77.6 80.0
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 4.4 5.0 4.3
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 27.5 31.8 31.0
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 2.10 2.80 2.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 10.2 14.9 12.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 75 160 75 160
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 2.6 5.5 2.4 5.2
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 3.5 4.4 3.4 4.4
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.7
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 3.5 8.1 3.4 4.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 2.1 1.0
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 101 305 235 350
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 3.5 10.5 7.6 11.3 11.3 12.5
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 48 195 62 108
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 1.6 6.7 2.0 3.5 1.5 4.5
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 65 145 93 139
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 2.2 5.0 3.0 4.5
Sinuosity, K 1.28 1.16
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0037 0.0037
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0029 0.0032
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0055 0.0131 0.0061 0.0106
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.9 4.5 1.9 3.3
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0006 0.0009 0.0006 0.0013
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.40
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 3.1 6.4 5.2 7.7
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.3 2.6 2.0 3.0 2.5 4.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 29.1 58.2 37.2 43.4
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.0 2.0 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 50.0 205.0 123.9 216.9
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 1.7 7.0 4.0 7.0 5.0 7.0
d16 (mm) 0.7 0.7
d35 (mm) 27.8 27.8
d50 (mm) 49.4 49.4
d84 (mm) 83.2 83.2
d95 (mm) 109.5 109.5
Table 4-b. Morphological Table - Project Number #D07063S (McKee Creek - Reach 2)
Existing Conditions
McKee Creek - R2 Design Conditions
McKee Creek - R2 Other Reference
ACOE Manual
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 4214 ac - 6.58 sq. mi. 4214 ac - 6.58 sq. mi.
Stream Type (Rosgen) E4 C4
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 350 350
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 78.5 88.0 85.0
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 4.0 4.5 4.1
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 25.5 26.8 31.9
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 3.10 3.30 2.7
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 8.1 8.3 12.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 150 205 150 205
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 5.7 7.9 4.7 6.4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 4.4 4.8 3.5 4.5
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.7
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 4.5 5.6 3.5 4.5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.2 1.0
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 208 377 243 447
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 8.0 14.4 7.6 14.0 11.3 12.5
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 95 240 64 144
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 3.6 9.2 2.0 4.5 1.5 4.5
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 135 240 96 287
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 5.0 9.2 3.0 9.0
Sinuosity, K 1.50 1.17
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0027 0.0027
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0018 0.0023
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0130 0.0200 0.0044 0.0076
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 5.9 9.1 1.9 3.3
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0005
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.20
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 6.5 6.5 5.3 8.0
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 4.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 32.6 32.6 38.3 44.7
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 45.0 180.0 127.7 223.6
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 1.7 6.9 4.0 7.0 5.0 7.0
d16 (mm) 0.7 0.7
d35 (mm) 27.8 27.8
d50 (mm) 49.4 49.4
d84 (mm) 83.2 83.2
d95 (mm) 109.5 109.5
Table 4-c. Morphological Table - Project Number #D07063S (Clear Creek)
Existing Conditions
Clear Creek Design Conditions
Clear Creek Reference Reach
Dixon Branch Other Reference
ACOE Manual
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 635 ac - 0.99 sq. mi. 635 ac - 0.99 sq. mi. 350 ac - 0.55 sq. mi.
Stream Type (Rosgen) E/C5 C4 E4
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 89 89 41
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 21.8 24.8 25.0 11.3 13.2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 3.3 3.9 3.6 3.6
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 11.5 16.7 17.3 7.9 13.9
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.30 2.00 1.4 0.80 1.40
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 5.8 12.8 12.0 5.4 10.8
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 50 150 90 190 35 100
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 3.8 11.3 5.2 11.0 3.1 8.9
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 2.6 3.1 2.2 2.5 1.8 2.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.9
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 3.7 6.1 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.9
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.4 2.3 1.0 1.1 1.5
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 45 75 132 196 48 85
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 3.4 5.6 7.6 11.3 4.3 7.6 11.3 12.5
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) 15 25 35 52 6 22
Re Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 1.1 1.9 2.0 3.0 0.5 2.0 1.5 4.5
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 35 47 52 78 29 50
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 2.6 3.5 3.0 4.5 2.6 4.5
Sinuosity, K 1.12 1.21 1.30
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0047 0.0047 0.0072
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0042 0.0039 0.0055
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0059 0.0084 0.0055 0.0086 0.0120 0.0180
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.2 2.2 3.3
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0008 0.0025 0.0008 0.0016 0.0019 0.0022
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.20 0.60 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.40
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.8 3.3 2.9 4.3 2.1 2.5
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.6 1.9 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.5 4.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 21.9 23.4 20.8 24.2 10.3 13.8
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.4 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.4
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 57.5 116.9 69.3 121.2 10.0 45.0
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 5.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 0.9 4.0 5.0 7.0
d16 (mm) 0.35 0.4 2.3
d35 (mm) 0.7 1.3 5.0
d50 (mm) 1.2 3.0 10.1
d84 (mm) 3.2 14.0 80.3
d95 (mm) 6.0 18.0 170.0
Table 5. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates for Project Site Streams
McKee Creek Stream Restoration/Project # D07063S
Linear
Footage a? Z c
or ? sue ? .? 3 ? ? o
Time Point Segment/Reach Acreage W .
> a > W
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Ton/y
McKee Creek
Pre-Construction 3759 88 2.3 494 13.1 1175 31.3 533 14.2 1469 39.1 302.5
Reach 1
McKee Creek
1623 496 30
6 686 42
3 441 27
2 305
8
Reach 2 . . . .
Clear Creek 1566 68 4.3 231 14.8 97 6.2 1170 74.7 36.5
Project Total 6948 156 2.2 1221 17.6 1958 28.2 533 7.7 3080 44.3 644.8
Table 6. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates for Reference Stream
McKee Creek Stream Restoration/Project # D07063S
Linear
Footage a? Z c
or ? sue ? .? 3 ? ? o
Time Point Segment/Reach Acreage W .
> a > W
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Ton/y
Survey Dixon Branch 352 157 44.6 112 31.8 14 4.0 1.9
Project Total 352 157 44.6 112 31.8 14 4.0 1.9
Table 7. Designed Vegetative Communities

(Fl Bare Root Seedlings
oodplain for Restoration and Enhancement A
reas)
Scientific Name Common Name Tolerance
Betula nigra River Birch FACW
Carya aquatica Water Hickory OBL
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry FACW
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash FACW
Juglans nigra Black Walnut FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar FAC
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FAC-
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW-
Live Stakes
(Stream banks for Restoration Area and as needed for Enhancement Areas)
Scientific Name Common Name Tolerance
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush OBL
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood FACW+
Salix nigra Black Willow OBL
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry FACW-
Stream Banks Permanent Seed Mixture
(Restoration Area and re-graded channel sections in Enhancement Areas)
Scientific Name Common Name % of Mixture Seeding Density (lbs./ac.)
Andropogon glomeratus Bushy Beard Grass 20% 2
Bidens aristosa Beggar Ticks 10% 2
Dichanthelium clandestinum Deer Tongue 15% 3
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye 25% 2
Juncus effusus Soft Rush 15% 2
Panicum virgatum Switch Grass 10% 3
Tripsacum dactyloides Gamma Grass 5% 3
Flood Plain Permanent Seed Mixture
(Restoration Area and Enhancement Area)
Scientific Name Common Name % of Mixture Seeding Density (lbs./ac.)
Andropogon gerardii Big Blue Stem 15% 12-15
Bidens aristosa Beggar Ticks 10% 12-15
Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge 25% 12-15
Chamaecrista fasciulata Partridge Pea 15% 12-15
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye 15% 12-15
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Blue Stem 20% 12-15
Table 8. McKee Creek - Reach #1 (HEC-RAS Bankfull Model Output)
River Ste Profile Q Total
(cfs) W.S. Elev
(ft) E.G. Slope
(ft/ft) Max Chl Dpth
(ft) Hydr Depth C
(ft) Flow Area Ch
(sq ft) W.P. Channel
(ft) Hydr Radius C
(ft) Top W Chnl
(ft) Vel Chnl
(ft/s) Shear Chan
(lb/sq ft) Power Chan
(lb/ft s) Power Chan
(W/mA2) W/D
Ratio Cross
Section #
3048.3 BKFL 340 593.87 0.001114 4.56 3.52 124 37.7 3.29 35.25 2.74 0.23 0.63 9.2 10.0
2996.3 BKFL 340 593.81 0.001203 5.47 3.18 127.05 42.45 2.99 39.93 2.68 0.22 0.6 8.7 12.6
2930.8 BKFL 340 593.63 0.001864 4.74 3.51 97.88 30.71 3.19 27.87 3.47 0.37 1.29 18.8 7.9
2842.0 BKFL 340 593.4 0.002451 4.42 3.37 88.14 29.02 3.04 26.15 3.86 0.46 1.79 26.1 7.8 #1
2760.1 BKFL 340 593.14 0.002987 5.24 3.18 83.09 29.03 2.86 26.09 4.09 0.53 2.18 31.7 8.2
2688.4 BKFL 340 593.01 0.001964 4.9 3.8 94.92 29.57 3.21 25 3.58 0.39 1.41 20.5 6.6
2621.5 BKFL 340 592.96 0.001309 6.55 3.5 119.83 39.06 3.07 34.28 2.84 0.25 0.71 10.3 9.8
2538.8 BKFL 340 592.81 0.001516 6.44 3.71 107 32.86 3.26 28.87 3.18 0.31 0.98 14.3 7.8
2491.5 BKFL 340 592.71 0.00175 6.32 3.61 100.39 31.2 3.22 27.84 3.39 0.35 1.19 17.3 7.7
2424.0 BKFL 340 592.52 0.002276 5.87 3.62 89.08 28.19 3.16 24.62 3.82 0.45 1.71 24.9 6.8 #2
2352.3 BKFL 340 592.41 0.001834 5.25 3.44 100.12 32.11 3.12 29.14 3.4 0.36 1.21 17.6 8.5
2288.5 BKFL 340 592.31 0.001772 6.02 3.17 107.32 37.22 2.88 33.8 3.17 0.32 1.01 14.7 10.7
2197.5 BKFL 340 592.17 0.001477 5.93 3.81 108.66 33.48 3.25 28.54 3.13 0.3 0.94 13.7 7.5
2122.0 BKFL 340 591.96 0.002232 5.14 3.48 91.79 29.93 3.07 26.39 3.7 0.43 1.58 23.0 7.6
2044.7 BKFL 340 591.84 0.001689 5.04 3.67 101.09 30.91 3.27 27.54 3.36 0.34 1.16 16.9 7.5
1968.1 BKFL 340 591.61 0.00285 4.14 2.97 86.86 31.32 2.77 29.26 3.91 0.49 1.93 28.1 9.9
1912.4 BKFL 340 591.39 0.003163 4.69 3.25 79.32 26.98 2.94 24.41 4.29 0.58 2.49 36.3 7.5
1848.9 BKFL 340 591.32 0.001759 4.85 3.49 100.77 31.62 3.19 28.89 3.37 0.35 1.18 17.2 8.3
1769.5 BKFL 340 591.21 0.00138 5.09 3.94 107.8 31.2 3.45 27.36 3.15 0.3 0.94 13.7 6.9
1701.4 BKFL 340 591.05 0.002016 5.93 3.56 95.32 30.48 3.13 26.8 3.57 0.39 1.4 20.4 7.5
1631.9 BKFL 340 590.94 0.001598 5.47 3.7 102.69 30.85 3.33 27.74 3.31 0.33 1.1 16.0 7.5
1558.3 BKFL 340 590.79 0.002043 5.71 3.2 98.52 33.44 2.95 30.79 3.45 0.38 1.3 18.9 9.6
1515.7 BKFL 340 590.76 0.001275 6.17 3.74 114.28 34.03 3.36 30.59 2.98 0.27 0.8 11.6 8.2
1471.1 BKFL 340 590.66 0.00174 5.93 3.6 102.41 32.65 3.14 28.41 3.32 0.34 1.13 16.5 7.9
1381.7 BKFL 340 590.55 0.00131 5.59 3.27 120.06 39.28 3.06 36.77 2.83 0.25 0.71 10.3 11.2
1334.2 BKFL 340 590.43 0.001631 5.32 3.73 101.45 30.39 3.34 27.22 3.35 0.34 1.14 16.6 7.3
1284.9 BKFL 340 590.28 0.002239 5.14 3.71 88.88 27.68 3.21 23.98 3.83 0.45 1.72 25.0 6.5 #5
1209.4 BKFL 340 590.18 0.001545 5.17 3.96 102.59 30 3.42 25.89 3.31 0.33 1.09 15.9 6.5
1135.3 BKFL 340 589.88 0.003464 5.57 3.05 78.91 28.52 2.77 25.86 4.31 0.6 2.58 37.6 8.5
1069.8 BKFL 340 589.81 0.001735 5.76 3.54 100.45 31.05 3.24 28.39 3.38 0.35 1.19 17.3 8.0
994.3 BKFL 340 589.63 0.002146 5.43 3.43 92.54 29.66 3.12 26.98 3.67 0.42 1.54 22.4 7.9
923.8 BKFL 340 589.49 0.001997 5.14 3.35 96.63 31.31 3.09 28.84 3.52 0.38 1.35 19.7 8.6
861.7 BKFL 340 589.45 0.001117 6.32 3.93 117.33 32.9 3.57 29.84 2.9 0.25 0.72 10.5 7.6
808.3 BKFL 340 589.17 0.00356 4.72 3.01 77.9 28.19 2.76 25.92 4.36 0.61 2.68 39.0 8.6
745.7 BKFL 340 588.96 0.003534 4.1 2.77 81.27 31.17 2.61 29.37 4.18 0.58 2.41 35.1 10.6
680.1 BKFL 340 588.71 0.004073 4.57 2.44 81.49 34.9 2.33 33.43 4.17 0.59 2.48 36.1 13.7 #6
638.2 BKFL 340 587.9 0.018134 3.03 1.64 49.87 31.34 1.59 30.41 6.82 1.8 12.28 178.8 18.5
613.3 BKFL 340 587.82 0.010622 2.09 1.41 70.99 50.74 1.4 50.2 4.79 0.93 4.44 64.6 35.6
565.3 BKFL 340 587.59 0.005309 4.57 1.49 98 67.53 1.45 65.73 3.47 0.48 1.67 24.3 44.1 #7
519.4 BKFL 340 587.46 0.002298 3.51 2.24 112.58 50.97 2.21 50.15 3.02 0.32 0.96 14.0 22.4
491.9 BKFL 340 587.42 0.002128 3.91 2.16 120.6 57.16 2.11 55.78 2.82 0.28 0.79 11.5 25.8
425.6 BKFL 340 587.05 0.004355 4.04 2.36 80.83 35.97 2.25 34.24 4.21 0.61 2.57 37.4 14.5
372.2 BKFL 340 586.76 0.004419 4.86 2.76 74.22 29.37 2.53 26.92 4.58 0.7 3.19 46.4 9.8
314.5 BKFL 340 586.5 0.00443 4.48 2.72 73.7 28.91 2.55 27.11 4.61 0.7 3.25 47.3 10.0
239.1 BKFL 340 586.29 0.003978 4.26 1.84 99.78 56.89 1.75 54.26 3.41 0.44 1.48 21.5 29.5
213.6 BKFL 340.0 586.01 0.005721 3.6 1.7 76.39 46.82 1.63 45.06 4.45 0.58 2.59 37.7 26.5 #8
188.1 BKFL 340 585.35 0.018934 2.57 1.55 51.03 34.3 1.49 32.91 6.66 1.76 11.72 170.6 21.2
130.3 BKFL 340 585.42 0.002197 4.83 3.06 97.08 34.02 2.85 31.75 3.5 0.39 1.37 19.9 10.4
79.1 BKFL 340 585.08 0.004288 4.21 3.15 70.59 25.33 2.79 22.42 4.82 0.75 3.59 52.3 7.1
20.8 BKFL 340 584.87 0.004003 4.23 3.04 74.92 27.92 2.68 24.64 4.54 0.67 3.04 44.3 8.1
Table 9. McKee Creek - Reach #2 (HEC-RAS Bankfull Model Output)
River Sta Profile Q Total
(cfs) W.S. Elev
(ft) E.G. Slope
(ft/ft) Max Chl Dpth
(ft) Hydr Depth C
(ft) Flow Area Ch
(sq ft) W.P. Channel
(ft) Hydr Radius C
(ft) Top W Chnl
(ft) Vel Chnl
(ft/s) Shear Chan
(lb/sq ft) Power Chan
(Ib/ft s) W/D
Ratio Cross
Section #
1504.877 BKFL 350 580.98 0.000953 4.94 3.03 133.38 47.09 2.83 44.05 2.62 0.17 0.4 15.6
1452.157 BKFL 350 580.87 0.001573 4.52 2.61 113.28 45.58 2.49 43.36 3.09 0.24 0.8 17.4
1384.994 BKFL 350 580.81 0.000924 5.8 3.38 125.43 39.45 3.18 37.09 2.79 0.18 0.5 11.7
1331.401 BKFL 350 580.76 0.000986 4.35 3.19 120.27 39.48 3.05 37.68 2.8 0.19 0.5 12.4
1287.24 BKFL 350 580.77 0.000603 6.05 2.86 172.06 63.87 2.69 60.11 2.02 0.1 0.2 22.3 Check
1233.479 BKFL 350 580.55 0.001669 4.56 3.41 94.36 30.19 3.13 27.71 3.71 0.33 1.2 8.9
1184.566 BKFL 350 580.56 0.000763 5.55 4.02 126.21 34.72 3.63 31.43 2.77 0.17 0.5 8.7
1139.055 BKFL 350 580.49 0.001101 5.69 3.5 114.56 35.88 3.19 32.7 3.05 0.22 0.7 10.3
1102.629 BKFL 350 580.39 0.00187 6.44 3.22 99.14 37.22 2.66 30.77 3.53 0.31 1.1 11.6 Check
1063.159 BKFL 350 580.29 0.001779 5.54 3.36 93.45 30.89 3.02 27.8 3.75 0.34 1.3 9.2
983.344 BKFL 350 579.86 0.004409 3.96 2.76 67.96 27.52 2.47 24.59 5.15 0.68 3.5 10.0 #R9
949.768 BKFL 350 579.88 0.002247 6.28 3.22 88.36 31.99 2.76 27.4 3.96 0.39 1.5 9.9
905.854 BKFL 350 579.84 0.001439 5.45 3.57 99.83 31.09 3.21 27.94 3.51 0.29 1.0 8.7
858.974 BKFL 350 579.68 0.002258 4.93 3.18 85.48 29.57 2.89 26.86 4.09 0.41 1.7 9.3
803.61 BKFL 350 579.69 0.001089 3.84 2.83 125.85 45.7 2.75 44.42 2.75 0.19 0.5 16.2
747.785 BKFL 350 579.51 0.002002 4.23 2.96 94.02 34.28 2.74 31.75 3.72 0.34 1.3 11.6
686.937 BKFL 350 579.26 0.003024 4.16 2.79 79.37 30.57 2.6 28.44 4.41 0.49 2.2 10.9
630.637 BKFL 350 579.18 0.002091 3.73 2.84 93.88 35.27 2.66 33.03 3.73 0.35 1.3 12.4
586.045 BKFL 350 579.05 0.002362 4.32 2.82 87.58 32.57 2.69 31.07 3.99 0.4 1.6 11.6
536.77 BKFL 350 579.04 0.001166 4.62 3.27 115.96 38.59 3 35.42 3.02 0.22 0.7 11.8
486.744 BKFL 350 578.95 0.001299 5.47 3.48 105.14 32.77 3.21 30.24 3.33 0.26 0.9 9.4
436.747 BKFL 350 578.77 0.002457 4.72 2.91 86.7 32.64 2.66 29.81 4.04 0.41 1.7 11.2 #11
390.268 BKFL 350 578.62 0.0028 4.29 2.86 82.27 31.57 2.61 28.77 4.25 0.46 1.9 11.0
348.811 BKFL 350 578.48 0.002982 4.47 2.88 80.14 30.99 2.59 27.81 4.37 0.48 2.1 10.7
293.013 BKFL 350 578.5 0.001038 4.26 3.43 118.57 37.39 3.17 34.53 2.95 0.21 0.6 10.9
238.354 BKFL 350 578.24 0.002888 4.01 2.77 81.1 31.17 2.6 29.25 4.32 0.47 2.0 11.3
183.705 BKFL 350 578.14 0.002329 5.33 3.04 88.2 32.72 2.7 29 3.97 0.39 1.6 10.7
131.688 BKFL 350 578.05 0.001824 5.75 3.27 95.52 33.25 2.87 29.17 3.66 0.33 1.2 10.2
87.574 BKFL 350 577.8 0.003649 3.63 2.63 75.37 30.93 2.44 28.67 4.64 0.56 2.6 11.8
38.737 BKFL 350 577.67 0.003 4.29 2.88 79.32 30.34 2.61 27.58 4.41 0.49 2.2 10.6
Table 10. Clear Creek (HEC-RAS Bankfull Model Output)
River Sta Profile Q Total
(cfs) W.S. Elev
(ft) E.G. Slope
(ft/ft) Max Chl Dpth
(ft) Hydr Depth C
(ft) Flow Area Ch
(sq ft) W.P. Channel
(ft) Hydr Radius C
(ft) Top W Chnl
(ft) Vel Chnl
(ft/s) Shear Chan
(lb/sq ft) Power Chan
(Ib/ft s) W/D
Ratio Cross
Section #
1543.267 BKFL 89 583.39 0.008295 2.6 1.32 19.01 15.58 1.22 14.44 4.68 0.63 3.0 11.8 #1
1487.218 BKFL 89 583.12 0.004623 2.56 1.64 22.51 15.34 1.47 13.69 3.95 0.42 1.7 9.3 #2
1444.336 BKFL 89 583.11 0.001609 2.99 1.89 34.29 19.9 1.72 18.16 2.6 0.17 0.5 10.6
1364.241 BKFL 89 582.87 0.002999 2.34 1.61 27.52 18.32 1.5 17.11 3.23 0.28 0.9 11.4
1293.322 BKFL 89 582.63 0.003283 2.63 1.7 25.89 16.83 1.54 15.23 3.44 0.32 1.1 9.9
1214.657 BKFL 89 582.03 0.007299 3.03 1.87 17.71 11.85 1.49 9.45 5.03 0.68 3.4 6.3
1140.916 BKFL 89 581.68 0.004818 2.59 1.84 21.03 13.35 1.58 11.4 4.23 0.47 2.0 7.2 #3
1069.104 BKFL 89 581.52 0.00267 2.26 1.55 29.7 20.33 1.46 19.17 3 0.24 0.7 13.1 #4
972.654 BKFL 89 581.1 0.004003 2.71 1.83 22.7 14.06 1.61 12.44 3.92 0.4 1.6 7.7 #5
885.923 BKFL 89 580.78 0.004538 2.62 1.21 27.3 24.49 1.11 22.59 3.26 0.32 1.0 20.4
778.451 BKFL 89 580.62 0.001106 3.7 2.19 37.92 19.33 1.96 17.35 2.35 0.14 0.3 8.9
680.988 BKFL 89 580.41 0.002038 3.29 2.32 28.28 14.87 1.9 12.17 3.12 0.24 0.8 6.4
595.63 BKFL 89 580.4 0.000579 3.96 2.55 41.04 18.62 2.2 16.12 1.83 0.08 0.2 7.3
536.342 BKFL 89 580.39 0.000195 5.25 3.26 58.68 21.08 2.78 18 1.24 0.03 0.0 6.5
509.212 BKFL 89 578.3 0.002172 3.33 2.09 28.47 15.66 1.82 13.59 3.13 0.25 0.8 7.5
443.705 BKFL 89 578.31 0.000325 3.76 2.52 63.63 28.15 2.26 25.24 1.4 0.05 0.1 11.2
365.317 BKFL 89 578.13 0.002413 2.76 1.7 29.43 18.41 1.6 17.31 3.02 0.24 0.7 10.8
285.48 BKFL 89 577.96 0.002125 2.82 1.81 30.64 18.52 1.65 16.93 2.9 0.22 0.6 10.3 #7
218.437 BKFL 89 577.98 0.000357 3.14 2.21 63.62 30.88 2.06 28.78 1.38 0.05 0.1 14.0 #8
121.043 BKFL 89 577.31 0.016844 1.64 1.07 14.99 14.64 1.02 13.97 5.94 1.08 6.4 13.7
73.051 BKFL 89 577.18 0.004004 2 1.36 26.19 20.1 1.3 19.27 3.4 0.33 1.1 14.8
Table 11 - Sediment Transport Competency Analysis Using HEC-RAS Bankfull Model (McKee Creek - Reach 41)
Shear Stress Analysis - Survey Data Existing Cross-sections Proposed
Feature XSC#1 XSC#2 XSC#5 XSC#6 XSC#7 XSC#8 Design XSC
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft) 88.1 89.08 88.9 81.5 98 76.39 80
Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 26.1 24.6 24.0 33.4 65.7 45.1 31.0
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 3.4 3.6 3.7 2.4 1.5 1.7 2.6
Wetted Perimeter, WP=W+2D (ft) 29.0 28.2 27.7 34.9 67.5 46.8 32.5
Hydraulic Radius, R=Abkf/WP (ft) 3.04 3.16 3.21 2.34 1.45 1.63 2.46
Average Channel Slope, Se (ft/ft) 0.00290 0.00290 0.00290 0.00290 0.00290 0.00290 0.00320
Boundary Shear Stress, T (lb/sq ft) 0.61 0.66 0.67 0.44 0.27 0.31 0.52
Median Diameter of Pavement, D90 (mm) 57 57 57 57 57 57 57
Median Diameter of Sub-pavement, D^so (mm) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress, tic; 0.0392 0.0392 0.0392 0.0392 0.0392 0.0392 0.0392
Largest Particle from Sub-Pavement, D; (mm) 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Largest Particle from Sub-Pavement, D; (ft) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Required Mean Bankfull Depth, Dr (ft) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.0
Required Mean Bankfull Slope, Sr (ft/ft) 0.0028 0.0026 0.0026 0.0039 0.0064 0.0056 0.0037

Table 12 - Sediment Transport Competency Analysis Using HEC-RAS Bankfull Model (McKee Creek - Reach #2)
Shear Stress Analysis - Survey Data Existing Cross-sections Proposed
Feature XSC#9 XSC#11 Check (RS 1287.2) Check (RS 1102.6) Design XSC
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft) 67.96 86.7 172.06 99.4 85
Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 24.59 29.81 60.1 30.8 31.9
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.2 2.7
Wetted Perimeter, WP=W+2D (ft) 27.5 32.6 63.9 37.2 27.4
Hydraulic Radius, R=Abkf/WP (ft) 2.47 2.66 2.69 2.67 3.10
Average Channel Slope, Se (ft/ft) 0.00180 0.00180 0.00180 0.00180 0.00230
Boundary Shear Stress, ti (lb/sq ft) 0.31 0.33 0.32 0.36 0.38
Median Diameter of Pavement, D50 (mm) 57 57 57 57 57
Median Diameter of Sub-pavement, D^so (mm) 24 24 24 24 24
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress, tici 0.0392 0.0392 0.0392 0.0392 0.0392
Largest Particle from Sub-Pavement, Di (mm) 45 45 45 45 45
Largest Particle from Sub-Pavement, Di (ft) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Required Mean Bankfull Depth, Dr (ft) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.2
Required Mean Bankfull Slope, Sr (ft/ft) 0.0035 0.0033 0.0033 0.0030 0.0036

9.0 Figures
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)

I?
Charlotte

?k
_?oE
Harrisburg
k
ITY CITY
p f -_STp f Concord
A _J U 4r
T 40
'`r - to
Concord 0
/'/TT S SCy Gl r1 m
04 U
{r"' g 01' J Y I _
= I f'? _ _.?QQ CHAPEL CREEK O U
?xk -r OPT.' z
.,. MELBA 14
G ',N 5
MU C
RIVERSIDE Gp9LgERRY L
k4`i 0 9? Q -- SILVER FOX
<v? 4f
'4/4i__1 ? cs SHAMROCK POO{1
PARALLEL
y
HUDSON MORRIS m - ?? ??G yk
rf `-
S <
O, t ,
m Concord
t2h
1 ? Z s ? ,4 ' ?ST f ? to
U , y? qGG/yG t .? c>
O i FOR I O O?
z -.,
)FORDSHIRE m Gam' O -_{"o QO
Z 1
L4 ? ? > ? i I I O1 .. PINE G_RO I/E
LUCAS NSOOW 07 I CHURCH
NF i p
_: ?JER ? \ II
! ?? Y l n? MARK <
r s _?" F z WO0?I_ . 4
??'OCF
O
Ya
LL
c Q j SNOW hNON)p` `? TIhIBE I t ?.'
{? {- R RIDGE W-?
= m Q MILLEN7 _ 71
" PROJECT SITE y !
A? CEDAR COVE G41? a _ N
?xcy0 ? Q-OO '? W f
RpygRo +? p?? 4I
qApq {
03
~ `?OpSq rll I r y 5?ti 7-I
k I 5 I Z
J r?? ?-
~` C I r MORRISON z 4{ O
1OHN
o 01
Q•I`
e??C x I o
'? OG
4 m
mx A?NyOUG
FIGURE #1 -VICINITY MAP
McKee Creek Project (1307063S) N WITHERS {v~ RAV E N E L
Cabarrus County, NC
Date: 02/13/08 ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
1 inch equals 5,000 feet ?',CnSYS?eII? 111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina
telephone: [phone] VAmmithersravenel.com
'' ROCKY RIVER
\A
o sae BROOKDALE
°a o he BETH wCOD
- 7
STAFFORDh
MILLEN SC �° er R�d9e
� a
pSilchester w S�.� -� ,� �rMb
w Straw O\
Q� Q r_ ` k < `Q OAK HOLLOW
Cn
vi
m o 0 y 2
a eRiT �
v l 1 M c
e� '. penstemon Ia
Tr—.
5 Z m
7 O
z.
t JP,
Ridgetop I m McKee Creek Reach
Clear Creek
ft
2 =tom LC
C, w f McKee Creek Reach 1
ds�`�� r 'i. , •x 0 LOOSA Q�PQO
Cedar Cove
O�� J�AZ
ors
cn
` a d\eh Q
d
Y ' c0
a
o
S e <v _
m
f° Cr
0
Z
o
°
r
� e
a �
Project Site Boundary A`
n Bost .c
I
3 eooar__. O� A
,. • ... •{ �.• os m Yporq Riq9 ° d3 Maitland 9e
0 Faker oia e Lora
a Passeres Off'
<m -o
k
' �I
..`�. Watershed Boundary T c�
m
rY l Yp•) _
arrO7 , i s� o
Kingbird
enbur °
_ Rob/nSory. '•• - - � �/e�oo g Shrine Coin
r
..°a,
U Marlstone �
• .Drawbridge�. � .. ... ,
`i
.-v M s•,V` feted _ y
Veronica
i
'k ,
Isk-
� •5
C,°a�
Legend
centerlines
aC�e
�c�/ oc Piped` DA landuse
D
r
TAX_TAXD_2
woe hoc cOG ° O
0 °
Cdrei°° Commercial
(D
pacKto� �etynne Govt -Inst
(6 r' J -
O
a G� ;
9e eaatr _ Manufactured
G
• �eY �� ., Oak
M
_ m �d� 6 Office
3 e��e _ e� Lake ° +'�m
� co - c�� '� _ ' *• I � 'Suagr.Cane -' �
2, Open Space
C7 co m a.
y Sin le Fam
03
vNe Warehouse
e
S4n�y 03 �. i' ' \\ N vt r Woods
Hannon Wilson Woods o Wexford
U r ,�,; 5, � 10ft_lidar_contours
FIGURE #2 - Project Site Watershed Map
McKee Creek Project (D07063S) N r WITHERS QX RAV E N E L
CabarrusCounty, nlCi ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Date: 12/12/07 o„stem 111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina
1 inch equals 2,000 feet En ar ems=A
PROGRAM telephone: [phone] www.withersravenel.com

SfB
CuB2, CAD
14W
VwOP1
I' .
E
c gcyo
_ Rcyq
Appoximate Project Corridor
I
die. I ?
-`vrRTpH ??
1
11.0
i
,GL'Q
[]'iD'-
F
J
- centerlines
Stream
Revised Stream Buffer
01
l parcel
soils
-? Type
CcB2 - Cecil sandy clay loam 2-8%S
Ch - Chewacla sandy loam
CuB2 - Cullen clay loam 2-8%S
CuD2 - Cullen slay loam 8-15%S
II? EnB - Enon sandy loam 2-8%S
EnD - Empm sandy loam 8-15%S
- IdB - Iredell loam 2-6%S
MeB - Mecklenburg loam 2-8%S
MeD - Mecklenburg loam 8-15%S
[]jlpo Pal' - Pacolet sandy loam 15-35%S
- PcE3 - Paco let-Urdothents complex 12-25%S
- PoD - Poindexter loam 8-15%S
PoF - Poindexter loam 15-45%S
SfB - Sedgefield sandy loam 2-8%S
w - Water
FIGURE #3 - Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map ?.

WITHERS
C'\ RAV E N E L
McKee Creek Project (D07063S)
Cabarrus County, NC N
Date: 12/12/07
',I'(???,1(?jll ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina
1 inch equals 700 feet telephone: [phone] www.withersravenel.com
.f N
# #1 t+ t 7? t## `( Ff '? rte; * t g r y $ ?J
*a* ? ° ?. tit a #ti i" Y # 1 .I A ' 'V ?#+ r ;T.
"MR* mar a4 `` ? ` a .• ?•. ,i-.
mmm
1 # + 4asraaa4. p # y } 1 +# #? « mrMWOMMM r p ?5, 5 h t
srrip'o f
i 4 #} }+a:4+?1 #?raf' `,, ?y! # R }' # M if,
y#' } i .
1" ; 5 R, k ! M w , ,, g
1
- ? ?f 1 Fla 106 r?' r _ r3 t , ' d
.* 1 NC DWQ Stream Form # NC-DWQ Stream Form #1
?? Survey back to McKee Creek 2. • y " Ii•, j?r± " 7_7V .0
-
t1 ip +I * ;' ?? ?n*["1K?R. ' USACE Data Form #1 av L ° "? PYd
r,
1 ? - `R a* ? I ( ? `' y ' ?• .? °d r Y:l. ','_,? ! "$r°-" ". 4 .• f ! ? ? §, a ?..?? y ?? ,:,'i `?'$? ,?' .{ aIT'??,'
1 a / I a rA , ,
## , USA CE Data Form #3 11*sti I; i;
# ? b Crest Gauge # 1 }f +?. r ;# ti Q ygL
5
41 I Y_
-71
Or. Ali j? ?1
f
*,r r .
.k. # USA CE Data Form #2
Wetland Flags
B 102-105 * ^ ! x:
d ti r t A a y ?? j s Q
Flag 1128,;f R. ";* # y'
r 1 J M f,. ?° a 4y { rk ?,
,
+ 1 . Crest Gauge # 2
?` • ,
* ". F ?' ? ? ? Last Flag
APIA. =w- IN"
' r ? ? - i ? ? ?r p? :rM - e A
• ', r ,? Flag 1078 TT 107A 41
Intermittent Unimportant Stream r *r . 1
Flag 110A
Last Flag 'ri, `,t r`, , ! I b? Flags 100101 TT CH t
AN.
.
a {4
J r':I. •y? "? #' 'at :i?aa#
** y* '' I *s_ # rl # 14
r4W *??.* 1 Faaf 9 +
, J?, 4..
t 4 ? )r r i- #`+w :;+
r+ **' ,,? NC-DWQ Stream Form #3 *# >
".
r r
I
t #
' i k
fi Flag #113 Ilk. i ?. *'
y 1 # ?' x
Start Channel -T Is,
*'" r.t's
-
%
I 1 r
'a At
P 141
? y? f.,.'kf, ?L fn? :rl ?¦ ? ,?r .?
k. # 4- .. i # 1. # s f piIk ?
5r 4n`+ aE 3 ti •r"?? * li 4r1 l4aaa* 1. $ , y • 'F # fi
r
'df.4?'`,?, 7 ?".` :V .14i !# S t Y} ' ? Pa 46
a AL paw ,?IF'? #??. ?,rar , #?oa't' mz^s?Y.._!p ti' 1'r s ar, .r
# asa 1' f.
* #!? ? ,.?' aaaaar?af, ° b 4 r' ?r f
as . tlE r ,? f,# 1., w
a aa`t* ' 3 i, 8 p # " 1 " 4..: ?# ... ;2 ! t ? Legend ow V 4F
0# J 010 7
0. 41r if
# Gauge Locations
• TL
IF 4
k 1 " 1
r' ?? a f¢ •?. # , .. parcel
-OL
'OIL t aR 1 # 1 i h t ND-DWQ Stream Form
USACE Data Form
NC-DWQ Strea Form #4 1 7T
m _ ,
44* Wetlands Must be confirmed b the USACE `
,} 1 N 1 ?f ,# ?••? Intermittent Stream Must be confirmed by the USACE and NC-DWQ
f * ; r i Fla 114 * m! ry. ?' ® Marginal Wetlands Must be confirmed by the USACE -
Start E hemral Channel • '00, 4f Ephemeral
, _... I '} / ?? • Stream Must be confirmedby the USACE
hr
1
b 1 +r ?• Pere
nnialStream Must be confirmed b the USACE and NC-DWQ
100 200 400 by
y y , rF t, i r?#; • + Fee Revised Study Area
t 1 `' ` ` , i ¦ FIGURE #4A - Hydro. Features w/ Gauge Locations #1
?nnel 4 McKee Creek Project (D07063S) r WITHERS RAV E N E L
y ! . ,?, a " + Cabarrus County NC N
Ir ?.. .. •- 1 1 If EN GINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
` "'' f5 t h Date: 0110412008 Ec Syp} Slei]], 111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina
( : ; , Match Lln@ s * ` telephone. [phone] www.withersravenel.com
• 1 inch equals 248 feet
m #5 4 F ?M
-mop- '°" til'' !n r. -J. • v v v yr vu v un r w n' - ; i. '%^
W. A r W ..? ® 64 7
.
1yF1 d f 4 r 6, a 1 1
7A or
1 r r?
r !' +.¦ I , ,6?t , ° , '?', , t " Flag 114 + t#
Start Ephemral Channel .P V++
-pr 4-
Aff
Match Line •++ 1 ?ttr "
Olt
Y
%
dirds
F1,3
% i
?` ? i
i?
-' -?
Flag 115 ` fl,4 i 1r
I!
24 Start Intermittent Channel ,
r 4 u ¢ rv
Tllc
f ,
1
NC-DWQ Stream Form #5 •?,
r?k ?' n5 ®4 '? Fi t mwri.'d?:p tq i I + 1- i ?' j
t 1 i•S y _?R _ 'f?i S' ?f4 r n p ?f? N 1 {I ? ? nJw
1
?1
90
Mot
F?'
44?, . `moo 4
V 4.
4p 00M R*ft
iV'„ fia4 t, ti ?' 9' ! +r ,
+?...? . * f
NC-DWQ Stream Form #6 a R., 9r?« t A, AN% or
`` ?' ? '?sa?x m ,i 1 j ? , 'fin ? r' P i a. ? ?w .e d:;S?'• t a?je °: I a f? ?,
j p • kk" ?'
4rmrqr
?? ? ' tik ? ' ?, " 1` '? {r 4 ? ,? ?; e. ? ? ?`` ?*? tt ? i. ,' ` ;:' J f°?`W?¦ i Y '? 4 v
r
-, Or
Stream Starts Off Property 'rF¦¦
y
? 4 ' ?1a 1 r . " ?c F
.
i`
v
s ! k'.
oAF
6f+
A /4? op
* , ??
+'i## t yi iit a,N?? y**?Y1 j +i 4F
r 5
1 'kr { , i?-u 4 1 ?u
` a
, Col
„'r' ,r I #vqs!` # NC DWQ Stream Form #7q**
Stream Starts Off Property Legend
y r
_ t" I I ? " ? ?? A ,1?. 1 ; w¦? ? ? ??' .'??1' • Crauge Locations
u - '444
?? H 4i :di1 1 p ?} p ?` 1 t parcel
NO-DWR Stream Farm
¦ p,
'_?`, t G. 1 ' ?` t M Yy USACE Data Form
'1` M 1 ?'klr?. 4 'k
Wetlands Must be confirmed by the USACE
f ^ ' • • • • • • • IrrfermiMent Stream Must be confirmed by the USACE and NGOWTg
?r 4V#
J'A
}
-Wrap IF
F r rr? ,E '? a 9r ??'rel Wetlands Must be confirmed by the USACE
1 f 1 tr
t meal Stream Must be confirmed by the USACE
t + i r ?" g P]`i.T 1 k d,P "r' r k .?Y } -•-•-•-•• Perennial Stream Must be confirmed by the USACE and NC-DKQ
`p 1 !` M{ !' r + 1 100 200 400 smdyAaa
a
'rj`'?' FIGURE #4B -Hydro. Features w/ Gauge Locations #2
• 'k AN r ? , ": F.?•?* ?'! ,?` _ L M Y;ah.? i"- ?" r''? McKee Creek Project (D07063S) WITHERS RAV E N E L
N
Cabarrus Count FN G1 NF FRS 1 PI AN NFRS 15II R VF Y (I RS
y, NC
r , u r ?,, i - '' P ,; ',,?,?'*'¦ °' ' ! 111 MacKenan Drive Caw, North Carolina
01104108 r,OSyStem
, t ?: „ r f "? s? `" ? • ? ' i Date:
telephone: [phone] www.wlthersravenel.corn
1 inch equals 200 feet
"V -1Y
?'
VIP,
------
Dixon Branch
Reference Reach
l ?-
TY
Hunt&si viIle
IlH)-?„

Reference Reach Site
1J
COUNTY
PROJECT SITE

(
Charlotte

a

FIGURE #5 - Reference Site Vicinity Map
N ?•
WITHERS l
C,', RAV E N E L
McKee Creek Project (D07063S)
Cabarrus County, NC ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Date: 12/12/07
1 i
h
l
5
000 f
t 1"CoSystem 111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina
nc
equa
s
,
ee telephone: [phone] www.withersravenel.com
,
Wit
x?
it mn,
ght
r x ? , I 1<
Zvi ?1
A -0 71 11 r.
AE;? 4 1t .
t$ '""''? t *W kState Road 2633
fir
?` ? f1?* ??' ?" •, = 4•+? ? ? ? is ? 4
Ills,
v ? t
q
'? 'I --
e
`?"+3?? '? t?? ?be ifs„?. f /'? A,. \
!t» a y? 4_ Sam Roper
Reference Reach
4 •`
Alexanderana
dry
Legend
\yr 1 d?," , 1 `'1?' ?yf, , parcels
???{ttt 1? - Mecklenburg Roads Mecklenburg Hydro
_ff, C3 Q Reference Reach Watershed
Reference Reach
10ft_lidar_contours
ids
FIGURE #6 - Reference Site Watershed Map ti p_ p /?
McKee Creek Project (D07063S) N ' R S 1'?AV E N E L
Cabarrus County, NC ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Date: 12/12/07 EC10System 111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina
1 inch equals 800 feet
,.- telephone: [phone] www.withersraveneLcom

VaD
VaD
iY syn. 4V ?
CeB2
EnB
60 m
w
WkD
'Alexanderana
ApD
CeB2
Legend
soils
Type
APD
CeB2
CeD2
EnB
® EnD
- HeB
® HUB
mo
PaE
® Va B
Va D
® W
- WkD
FIGURE #7 - Reference Site NRCS Soil Survey Map ?- 1
McKee Creek Project (D07063S) N WITHERS RAV E N E L
Cabarrus County, NC ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Date: 12/12/07 111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina
1 inch equals 312 feet
telephone: [phone] vvww.withersravenel.com
rte.. r.. ?......... rte.. .... ?.
- ?1 r t
doe-
tw -N
'-< -a
y - 7
sa?A? ( p. l
41
AWL, N'y
d
REFERENCE REACH'
f? -
Ile fA
tea, _ } j ? .?sr.
41
r B
04 0
y1i
fk'
'
14 ?
M :a! e? ar" W, 'SAI
?< r ? #
Legend
Perennial Stream
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
A Dry Oak--Hickory Forest
FIGURE #8 - Reference Reach Community Type Map
McKee Creek Project (D07063S) N r W I T H E R S RAV E N E
CabarrusCounty,NC 7i ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Date: 09/07/07 ^?.?n? 111 MaCKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina
1 inch equals 50 feet telephone- 91 C) 469 3;40 ,
10.0 Exhibits
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
Stage vs. Stream Power (Clear Creek)
50
00
.

45.00
3

40.00 ^
..
' 2.5
< 35.00

30.00 2

25
00
.
1.5
20.00 H

15.00 1

10.00
0 0.5
5.00 0

0
00 0
.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Stage (ft)
- -XSC #3 - Existing XSC #3 - Proposed XSC #5 - Proposed - -XSC #5 - Existing

Maximum In-Channel Values XSC #3
Ext. Prop.
Q (cfs) 205 115
Stream Power (W/m^2) 49.2 18.9
Sed. Transport Rate (lbs/s) 3.4 1.3
Maximum In-Channel Values XSC #5
Ext. Prop.
Q (cfs) 163 82
Stream Power (W/m^2) 39.6 16.1
Sed. Transport Rate (lbs/s) 2.7 1.1
Exhibit 1 - Stage vs. Stream Power for Clear Creek (Existing compared to Design)
Stability Curve (From HEC-RAS - Stable Channel Design Copeland)
Q = 89 cfs; Estimate Sediment Total Sediment Concentration = 574 ppm
0.0065
0.006
w 0.0055
w
0.005
Degradation
O
0.0045
0.004
U 0.0035
Aggradalion
0.003
I
0.0025
0.00
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00
Channel Bottom Width (ft)
Stability Curve (From HEC-RAS) f Prop. - bot. width & slope
Stability Curve (From HEC-RAS - Stable Channel Design Copeland)
Q = 89 cfs; Estimate Sediment Total Sediment Concentration = 574 ppm
0.0065
0.006
w 0.0055
w
0.005
0 Degradation
0.0045
2.2; 0.0039
0.004
U 0.0035
Aggradalion
0.003
0.0025
0.9
1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7
Channel Depth (ft)
Stability Curve (From HEC-RAS) --*-- Prop. - depth & slope
Exhibit 2 - Stability Curves From HEC-RAS (Clear Creek Design)
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve
c?
as
L
Q
Cn LL
X ?
Y
C
cv
m
1000
100
10
- - - • Lower 95 % - - - -Upper 95% • Regional Curve Data
McKee RI (Range) McKee R2 (Range) -Clear Creek (Range)
Dixon Branch Ref (Range) Power (Regional Curve Data) Power (Regional Curve Data
1000

/
/
000
.1 0, -0
000 0" o'
/

.0 0
0,_
.00
'o, 0 0 /
0 /
0000 1 /
-000 i

0.1 1 10 100
Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.)
1
Exhibit 3 - NC Piedmont Rural Regional Curve, including project and reference reach surveyed data
11.0 Designed Sheets
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
00000
No. Revision Date B Designer scale enr no,
`"? -?°
°m"" Il'y Des. MCKEE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT EXISTING SITE CONDITION WITHERS & RAVENEL
MFC FEBRUARY 1008 A
Checked By . b No. REACH 1, REACH 2 & CLEAR CREEK ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
CHW 04070558.00 CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA m NxNru"are Car,,Nernh Caronla en mI:919? ra.:.aieweame .r.,,,..Ueraa.a"ai.oom
REA?H 1
ROSS SECTION 3 l
POOL
NG /
FEN
r l- NG ? BEHI 2 - 9?
i
a,
NG TB
NG-

N EW

/
o
W
0
n
K
E
?
n?
w
"

1
. .2 +3 u
'w
w
REACH `
CROSS SECTi6-N 1
v RIFFLE i BEHI 2 -4
BEND-1 / -
A B B
i'
XOO-
u EW nN
w // - - W
# # +30 #4 +50 # #T # #
i sa%? _
-LL
A: ?tix? ;r
LZ
BEHI 2 - 5?
I
l ? a
REACH 1
a
8EHI Z- 8
?G
BEHI 2=-
Deaener I smi"
BE I2-3 W12'=7
-- NG TB TB T ELINE
12-2
" BEDROCK BB Ew 6i
' BB I
•II „11
CROSS SECTION 2
MCKEE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
CABARRUS COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
1"=20'
J
? i

EXISTING SITE CONDITION
REACH 1

kHl

EXTREME i
LEGEND
/
¦ VERY HIGH NG - NATURAL GROUND
TB - TOP OF BANK
/ BF - BANKFULL
HIGH EW - EDGE OF WATER @ WATER SURFACE
CK - SUBSURFACE CREEK
MODERATE HR - HEAD OF RIFFLE
RF - RIFFLE
RN - RUN
LOW MP-MAXPOOL
GL-GLIDE

¦ VERY LOW BB - BOTTOM OF BANK
FENCE
FEN
-

WITHERS
RAVENEL Use N1.
B

In MsKsran Wire Cry, Norm Carolina D6n tal: 919? ra.: 919451-0 8 wxuiManraoeLOOm

B,
- - %? i
Ai*t
i
5*00
v

_G
REACH 1
3S SECTION 4
POOL -
VkOn BEHI2-10
P=zg'
BEHI ?? \?v
? CK r? A '
` EXTREME •.? ?? \ 1. L
VERY HIGH .?
? Ar P=20
HIGH 0+00 o BEHI 2 -12 REACH 1
CROSS SECTION 5 /
MODERATE jr LOW
VERY LOW ?k L
+00
21+00
V
-
BEHI 2 -11
22+00
\ EXCA pI BEDROCK
LDCATIb ="e
23+0
\,1 REACH 1 o
LEGEND Y. NG -NATURAL GROUND A ?? ??•
TB - TOP OF BANK
EDGE OWATER R@K WATER SURFACE
A v -
CK - SUBSURFACE
v ?
HR - HEAD OF RIFFLE %
RIFFLE
RN - RUN
\\
MP - MAX POOL
GL - GLIDE \
BB - BOTTOM OF BANK
FEN-FENCE
No. R?Ision Date Designer scale She NI.
D-n By EXISTING SITE CONDITION WITHERS RAVENEL
MFC FEBAUAAV t008 MCKEE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT REACH 1 C
Checked dy Joh No.
r.Mw romnsga.en CABARRUS COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA m McKons, W. Cev.Nenh Ceuola neN ml:ao-aroaaeo rz.:.aieweame .r. ithermarer L.-
LEGEND
NG - NATURAL GROUND
TB - TOP OF BANK i / -
BF - BANKFULL
EW - EDGE OF WATER @ WATER SURFACE % A -r590?
CK-SUBSURFACE CREEK i BEHI 2 -16
i
HR - HEAD OF RIFFLE
RF - RIFFLE / ^590- - - -
RN - RUN
MP - MAX POOL ?/? / , }QO d O
GL - GLIDE
BB-BOTTOM OF BANK ? _ - -
FEN-FENCE BE1412-14 /
r? - ) d
looo
to
j -
Y_ _28+0
Noor
REACH 1
BEHI 2 -15
.. A 26
?-- 1 _

ZEACH 1/
$ SECTION 6
RIFFLE
NG
L

,ZIP
SECTION 8
POOL
+
O
? 1 O
NG
ZI TB NG
B1 1 B
o S EW BB

a %q
n EW

a? n
w

+1 n +7 n +n n +M +5 n +6 0 +7 0 +R o +A O
REACH 1
CROSS SECTION 7
POOL
TB

.
j

I
TE

BEHI
¦ EXTREME
¦ VERY HIGH
HIGH
MODERATE
LOW
¦ VERY LOW

b
017,
\ i
No. Date Designer scale snr no,
-? EXISTING SITE CONDITION WITHERS RAVENEL
MFC ?FEBAUAAV i008 MCKEE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT REACH 1 D
a hecked By Joh No.
r.Mw romnsga.en CABARRUS COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA inMwKmnWm Cay.North Caoo,:nan ml:aeaeraaeo ra.:919451am8 -norm-
i.oom
LEGEND
NG - NATURAL GROUND
TB - TOP OF BANK
BF•BANKFULL
EW - EDGE OF WATER @ WATER SURFACE
CK-SUBSURFACE CREEK
HR • HEAD OF RIFFLE
RF - RIFFLE
RN - RUN
-MAX POOL
GL
GL -GLIDE
BB - BOTTOM OF BANK
FEN FENCE
1V }
N

w TB
0

TB

H n
q
+
B OCK BF
w
I
TI T
1 I1 1'. ?
Designer scale
MCKEE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
CABARRUS COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA

?___REACH 2 zD ??
EXISTING SITE CONDITION
REACH 2
NG F N
@W
MP
o?
esse
-r EW
1u
J

NG G
EW ROC

le PILE m

a
d sseellill

F

QQ

N It
q
m +
- m
? II? 77

W W
WITHERS RAVENEL
M Mrbran WM Cay, North Caallna DBN tal: 919? ra.: 919451-0 8 wxuiManraoeLOOm
W
0

Use no,
E
N T B
E
NG
EW

j
w
CLEAR CREEK
CROSS SECTION 3
RIFFLE
BEHI
¦ EXTREME
¦ VERY HIGH
HIGH
MODERATE
CLEAR CREEK
CROSS SECTION 1
RIFFLE LOW
¦ VERY LOW
I
0
BEHI 1-11
1
394.
m
CLEAN CREEK
- ROSS SECTION 5
RIFFLE \\ -?
BE a:
6*00
j? 00 y

4
" ,
_ _ 4
-
,
.. -' ? - , BEHI 1- 4
?

- r? 0

CLEAR\CREEK
CROSS SECTION 6

- POOL
CLEAR CREEK
1 - -^
1 ?
I
06 EH111-2
---------------
I'
1
CLEAR REEK
CROSS SECTION 2
P=2o'
CLEAR CREEK
CROSS SECTION 4
RIFFLE
,•=20'
,•=20'
No. Date Designer Soele snr no,
CHW ,"=Ba'
MCKEE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT EXISTING SITE CONDITION WITHERS RAVENEL F
MFC FEBAUAAV p08 CLEAR CREEK
Checked By Joh No.
r.Mw romnsga.en CABARRUS COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA nn MwKmnWm Cay.North Caoonanan ml:aeaeraaeo ra.:919451am8 -norm-
i.oom
LEGEND
NG - NATURAL GROUND
,,.
B ! I 1;I ?/ ' a
F - TOP OF BLNK
EW - EDGE OF WATER @ WATER SURFACE ?? -
CK-SUBSURFACE CREEK
???/,??? V
HR - HEAD OF RIFFLE 0
RF - RIFFLE
RN - RUN REACH 2
1 R I-1 fl I'
MP-MAXPOOL
GL - GLIDE
i
BB - BOTTOM OF BANK - ?'
FEN-FENCE
?' 00

NG TB NG
N
F B
EW H
0
N BB
=E
W
J
W

BEHJ
I EHI 'EXISTI ONBgDMCK ?`
00
CREEKS ? ? - -?80-
- - ?? OSS ION 7 / ??,? ? /? /
RiFF? ,?
loo,
_.., v Co
80.
`9?BA?
\o ,vim ? f r58p_ - - -?
F.
71t00- 00 +00
+0
0 0
BEHI 1-4 I o -
- p
/ EAR CREEK
?:C SS SECTION
BEHI
¦ EXTREME
¦ VERY HIGH
HIGH
¦ MODERATE
LOW
¦ VERY LOW

192 C ee CLEAR CREEK \ POOL
e
4
l

NG 71 1
TB NG
t Ew
o MP o
a EW °y

n>
? n>
w
w
.1u ju -1
No. Gate Designer 8oele Use no,
CHW =B0'
By MCKEE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT EXISTING SITE CONDTION WITHERS RAVENEL
MFC FEBAUAAV 1008 REACH 1 & CLEAR CREEK G
Checked By Joh No.
CtIW 04070568.00 CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA in MwKmnWW Ca,North Caaonanen tel:aaam-aao ra.:.aia-ama s .a....aaran?soei.oom
m9nRE 9MEEM G3C??40G3Q400a PBDO[Egu
IFE?(KMIYOUIF=x1EHML%H(NF=H1F=Hu Pn(KD(2nL%H
CABARRUS COUNTY
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST OF SR 1168 ROBINSON CHURCH RD. AND
SR 1169 PEACH ORCHARD RD.
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
Project Reach Beakdown
Begin sta End sta Totals
McKee Creek -Reach 1
Stream Enhancement (Level II)
10+00 25+00 1500
29+00 46+40 1740
3240
Stream Enhancement (Level l) 25+00 29+00 400
McKee Creek - Reach 2
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
10+00 16+96 696
Clear Creek
Stream Restoration
10+69 27+10 1641
Project Totals
Stream Restoration= 1641 feet
Stream Enhancement (Level l)= 1096 feet
Stream Enhancement (Level ll)= 3240 feet
TotalAmountofStream= 5977 feet

a
Q
f
s
s
mno
CmiX
mnYF
Sta. 10 + 69.60
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF.•
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 1 H 103
RALEIGH, INC 27604
CONTACT: ROBIN DOLIN
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Prepared by:
WITHERS & RAVENEL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511
tel:[phone] Fax: [phone] www.withersravenet.com
INDEX OF SHEETS
SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION
TITLE SHEET
1 SYMBOLOGY-GENERAL NOTES-
VEGETATION SELECTION
2-4 PLAN & PROFILE PLANSHEETS
5 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
6-7 VEGETATION PLANTING PLAN
8-11 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

1 imh=509.
595
590
58
580
575
570
565
595
590
585
580
575
570
565
25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00
R EACH 1

ING
cRO No
N ? ?
l

BANIff
LL 'l I
m h
w m N a gg
N
a O a Ill I w BANIffDLL
a w $
- -,- - -
--
---- EXISTI
GROUND G

?? 1 am
L
DESIGN -CL CL--- L- JCL
THALWEG
I-DES

T IGN

LWEG
\u

U

--CL,
8

aw 5: w

i w

I-- N I- ? ? CO O 00 dl 00 N a In LQ N M L(1 N] a M M I"] L9 N O M M O 6? N N - 6l
D O N N a N
n ( Lc) q
1
f
Ln
o
M
'`
M
M
M
N
O
L
oG ? a, N N L
m L
1
ro m 03 m m m Do G7 m l
l Z) c
m CIO G7 I
I
m N co m N
co M N co ?
mn co e c M 0 uL Ln n U' M M M
L L
ma
r?
ND. II Date By Designer Scale snmw
1 DEAA PAIN COMMENTS 05/08/08 CHW WaA 1--5W
1 FINAL L RESTORESTORATION TpN PAIN COMMEMS 09/lVW 15/09 CHW Drawn By Date n
McKEE CREEK PLAN & PROFILE - REACH 1 WITHERS &- RAV E N E L
MFC Aucusr 2005
Checked By Job No. STA. 25+00.00 TO STA. 39+97.42 ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS 2
CHW 2070599.00 CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 111MacKeoeeD&eren,NoMC=llme27511 21:9194647090 Pm:919eeT-009 w mthe-rel-

l
l \
TE,
I II

GRAPHICALSCALE
50' 2S 0 50' 100' 150'
1 inc=50 fl.
C END REACH 2 ...
Sta.16+95.71
,'e/
CROSS— (1VP)
/ ` -
L
ROCK VANE(IYP)
J-HOOK 0I
EXISTING BEDROCK
LS CATION
1
EXISTING BEDROCK _ l
LDCATION -?
REA H 2

585
.W
N m
a
?
A

n
B

n
kNIKIFULL g

M

580

EXISTIN 9.

a w
8
a

w

?_

_m
?

a

a
a

-
a
L
lu

qm
MOUND -_-_ __ a w w

-CL- C
575

570 pA
nro n m
a DESIGN
THAI

w
Nm M
aw
M. m
u F
a y
w ?
b
m

565 ELI
y
iL
a
i
m
w
z
w
m
w

560
G? a1 r N 00 Y) Ul to N M 111 m It ? CD N ? N 000 ;1 m m Ill
V.. w to m to w (6 ' v n ? r ? r ? ? ? 0) ? m a ? ? n r
N N N N N Iq Iq N N N to H In N
In N
In Ip
In In
In N Iq 1.11
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00
oa
cg
No. Revision Date By Designer Scale snmw
1 DRAFT RESTORATION PUIN COMMENTS 05/08/08 CHIN W&R T'=? McKEE CREEK PLAN & PROFILE - REACH 2 WITHERS &- RAV E N E L
1 FINAL RESTORATON PL1N COMMEMS 09/15/08 CHW Drawn By Date 3
MFC AUGUST 2099
CNeclkW By Joe No' STA. 10 + 00.00 TO STA. 22 + 86.39 ENGINEERS I PLANNERS SURVEYORS
CHW 2070-599.00 CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 111MecKenenD&eren,NoMC=lllne22911 2I:9194W3M r :919A67-6)011 m mthe-nd.wm
TYPICAL RIFFLE AND POOL CROSS SECTIONS
? ? ? unlK
OAIt HI ? DJRa
I a I RIFFLE AA POOL BEB
REACH1 REACH2 CLEAR CREEK
IuFr? a - ?a wmE Paa
31. u
u
1
-
ISB
2A
-
- u
Al
120
1x11
a
-
z1
xB By
se
118
BSA
1xe
2A

- u
Ss
122
115.1
u
-
zB
1O u
ss
12
A
25n
ss
zB
-
- e
"
121
61e
xB
-
LB
1
vrom alnNw2Rwy
v2nArfl>rsTxlry
MWWMD9mNw.N
wmmrooIXmrunorymiq
&MAALAIffA(ANQ
BOTroM BWmw
S OPE A
SLOPE 6

11 SLOPE t
?? lw
I, v i,? X11, ?? o It
12' S G-
s q
L - 1 PERe NFM
RL IXISTING © iaep FORD CROSSING
xackery CRANNELITYP)?: nsn °
xaoKng" a.? vo°..,° 6'" 1 s"uLee,) is wolo?© ?. e
BEGIN CLEAR CREEK s
mmare
SiR.10+88.68 p ' © .
v °
z x re
e x°b°„v ?' zBe e. i IBu T
/? z uodcbe
s mEIR IIY
\i
e asnQ?.sn - /
1 \?
CROSSVANE
7Fkoo z%.
I?
I
C
?zsn a n ,ee. e? s
s?,en ,? am°?°
s..., z alj ^ Is..°, ^M G a Rh
b
CR0a6VANE s ymu- 12+00
e mp -_ / °°xpem
kb°?:2 9!j CLJI ILL IlMI7s ??Fk 13+x' ©e?w 1
j1+01)
-. o? D e? ?°° m xakbe„v c?x8 esYe?°,°
m0 G?asn ?aakeerrv ROOT wADs (IYP)
DI
iu 1 TIE-W TRIBUTARY D
© ONLYFIILTO be
aANKFULL ELEVATION
o
590
585
580
575
580
575
570
oke.r w °W W p oR'^ LOGG?\?._? ?G
x°ekbe,.v wow
ea Q? aeons a e tNZ a nu ow,L?? ° ( m x° J\.?
14
d? ®wwRw ,f?
2?I1IOwTRANSPUNTS

OP•"OPES-16

GRAPHICAL SCALE

DO jcI 1 ¢ I'S°°'lPLANS
P]

25' 0 50' 100' 150' agF9T F,ycewEQPyfOC

1 inch 50 fl.
C EAR CREE K
w?

g
Z
fON ?
11

>

l

> yay
T

V
?

c n
r

V
?

c
O V

N
m

m
in

e
N
'
N

q
N

m

tA
a ry

p
N

1
L

«7soG m5:
MANE

'w

_ w

1z.5G.GG
CRpGSVANE

IB•M O1
LOGWEIR

9
m

?
m

9
m

?
g

n
N m M 11
11.
a

m
ll.
"
y

m

ii

pp
N

it

m

m

+?
>y

e

m

b
INV. IW, =SHOD I IM/. Elev.=99 .m IAN. FJev.=S S EL W d W -
u?
w
a
w _ _
a _
a
w _ _
a e
w oG

^

n

a
I
I
I
BANKFULL
-CL

/T
v
DESIGN
THALWEG d

m

'm

m
S
m' m
° EXISTING
'
n
a;

m
III
m

m
n
m
N C +N
$
a w BANKFULL a w G . GROUND
a
w
_
C.
w
a
w
g
O
L ? a w aGmi p
_
- L --v - - _
CV 0
El ST I D
GROUND DESIGN
THALWEG
K
D
SIGN
m
v ,
N ? Tf? ALWEG W
M ° M o 01
L6 10 ? O ° v? ? 111 - p? " 17
I .1 + gt
I g
I
+ 2m
0 N 0 In N In ?
10 ? Ny
10 GO no

IIO

N w S. y r
m n N m 8 1 8 m + n F
a w wa w m y m 8 Q
10 00 11 00 121 00 13- 00
aw
m
a
m
w
m
a w a; m ?
? a
N BANKFULL S
n
ENDG
E
4

ZOO

?

n EKISTINC

GROUND `?

EbM=Sl4 10

7
.01

UNa
H •W
-
?
C0 s
N
+
m
n DESIGN
THALW
N n n?
l
a w N
a OD N
N IA 0. w
01 OR n
V ci tD GO
m ? N? b
O Ul n 01
N Lq M M
N M
to L? 00
M G? N
N ? O
O N N
N M N
LO CD
in m LO
M 01
CD
M r 0 1 n In
M 1.6 O GO O, ? O ? r
ii m
C; 01 O ? O 03 G NO aO m D0 X 00 ? aO ? O ? O ? r ? O r M n M m M
N n W) h.
n In n N P
,
n 1f1 LO GO
N - GO
N Go
N
GO N 10
In
n W)
1n
~ N
N
n N
~ N
n 10
I()
co
n t-
ll?
n 10
n I
N
10
ILO N N N H N W) N N u) b N W) it) N N N 1q N N it) N N N if1 0
25+00 26+00 27+00
14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00
590
585
580
575
570
565
C?
No. Revision Date By Designer Scale snmw
1 ORAFf RESTORATION IMN COMMENTS 01 05/08/08 CHIN CHI Drawn By WEIR Date ,-_
P ? McKEE CREEK PLAN & PROFILE - CLEAR CREEK WITHERS &- RAV E N E L
1 FINAL RESTORATON LRN COMMEMS 1 76.41
MFC Aucusr zone
Checlmd By Job No. STA. 10+00.00 TO STA. 27 + ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
CHW 2070568.DD CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 111MecKenenD&eren,NoMC=lllne27511 2I:919AW3M r :919467E00e -mthenm+end.osm
Bare Root Seedlings
Scientific Name Common Name Tolerance
Betule nigra RMe, Bch FACW 1?
W,ye agvat- Wale, Hickory OBL
Cellislaevtgata Soge,be„y FACW
F,e-., p--y1--e teen Ash FACW
Jugle"mg,e
tiriodeodron tulipifera Black Walnut
Tulip Poplar FAC
FAC
Pletaousomdeotalis Sycamor FAC-
Quvcusmich-- Swamp Chestnt Oak FACW-
Ingehehal, ke-dl will crosist of bare-- egetet- planted at a target deu try of 680 stems
pe-she, spaced on an 8' by 8' pid. Selected sped. shall be planted amrdi,S to the, wet,.,
mlemrce and the amtcipetedwet,., of the planting are.. Bem-B shell be planted lm the
d.lg,eted hatched are.. shown an the ple,,, N-Latched are. m the floodpleim that are
d.lg,eted as Inv.rvespecie, -em-ell are. will also require bare root plemlings.
Live Stales
Scientific Name
Cephale,thus o¢identeh, Common Name
Bottmbtrh Tolerance
OBL
Comvsamomum
Salixnigra Silky Wgwo. d
Black Willow FACW+
OBL
5ambucvs-nadensis Elde,be„y FACW-
Ism stela shall be -ellled om al the so-am bemla thh sh- the project area Stakes
shall be I-ellled randomly with respect m speci., 2' m 3' apart using triangular spring
along the o- de of berms and 4' to 6' open .Img Viangular spring almg the berry of
,height riffle sect ors (maximvn of 20% Black Willow). Stakes shell be selecirvely placed
on existingvageteted stream hanla.
Stream Banks Permanent Seed Mixture
Scientific Name Common Name %of Mixture So Lm? Denary
AndroWgon glomvalus Bahy Beard Ch., 20% 2

Permanent Seed Mixture
Scientific Name Common Name %of Mixture S?Ig Density
AndroWgon ge d, Big Blue Stem 15% 1215
Aidensaristosa Be Ticks 10% 12-15
W-vulpinoidee Fox Sedge 25% 12-15
Chamaec-ta fasciulala Partridge Pea 15% 1215
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye 15% 12-15
Sch¢shyrium -p-um Little Blue Stem 20% 1215
A permanent seed mixture of nativegL.,es and boas shall be applied to all di---bed are. of I
site Separate mikm_ are provided far so-am barks and far fled plain are.. The permanen
seed mlxtwe fohso-eem berth shell be applied In order to provide -epidstebil i.ttian of c-trc
stream bents and steep slop.. The permanent seed mixture for flmdpleinsshell be applied t,
,the- dl--bed are., ooBide of e-timg tree Ii,., to provide rapid gi--th of he,baceo. g,mo
cvve-with a high biological hebltetvelloe
2
C$
I ROOTS AND FLOOD PLAIN PERTAIN EM SEED MIXf TIRE SHALLBE
INSTALLED IN THE W.TCHEDAREAS. REFERENCE THE NOTES I
THE PUNT TABLES FOR FURTHER PIANTINO INSTRUCTIONS.
50' 75' a 50, 100' 150,
1 Inds = 50 R
Aidens aristosa Beggar Ticks
10% 2
oid?anrh?mmdand.rn?m oee,Tnn?e 15% 3
Elymusvirgioicus Vltginia Wild Rye 25% 2
luncus eHvsus Soft Rush 15Wo 2
Portiere virgatum Switch Gra4 10% 3
7ri sacvm dac bides Gamma Gr.s 5% 3
Flood Plain
1 zDTDSaaoD CABAARUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA mMeracFtenoereeary,NOtmaolmesrMt td:atsesaaaw ?:alsesrLWoe »w..wmot,Frend.o>m
No. Rev5i0n Date By Designer Scale snmw
1 GRAFT RESTORATION PLAN COMMENTS 05/08/08 CHW waA 1-_50'
McKEE CREEK VEGETATION PLANTING PLAN WITHERS ? RAV E N E L
1 FINAL RESTORATION PLAN COMMENTS 09/15Na CNW Damn By Date
MFC Aucusr zone
Chatted By Job No' REACH 1 ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
.
REACH
MPt?s? s
t`
A
y?
A
REMOVE MULTI-FLORA ROSE
AND REPLANT
Bens Root Seedlings
Scientific Name Common Name Tolerance
on,h °;o„ "'6 I cn I
Ca,ya sae.st - Water Hickory OBL
Celbs laeviga°a Sugah, 'y FACW
Fra-., penosyNaoia Green Ash FACW
fuglaos nigra
firiodendroo tvlipifera el kWellimn
Tulip Poplar FAC
FAC
Plate nusomdentalis Sycamore FAC-
Qvetcvs-ha.- Swamp Chest-Oak FACW-
t' L
%i
1
?? P i II \ <? a as
I; 1 1
o I t ?4°n??r
Stream Banks Pennanent Seed Mixture
Scientific Name Common Name %of MocWns Seedinc)Denstiy
(hda
9idensariSOSa
Didianthelium daodeA,- Beggar Ticks
Deer Tongue 10%
15% 2
3
Flymusvtrgioicus Uitginia Wild Rye 25% 2
hinders efluvs Soft Rush 15% 2
Panialm virgetum Switch Gra4 10% 3
Tripswvm dactylotdes Gamma Grass 5% 3
?z
- :- - T
All
/ lg
j ear g /? \ 1
?.. FILL CHAN L(Uml\ ?'.
GRAPHICAL SCALE
50' 2S 0 so' 100' 150'
1 inch=5016
D aaaEROOT MOIL00DPIANPERMMENTSEEBMI% ESIMLLBE
INSTALLED IN THE HATCHED AREAS. REFERENCE THE NOTES BELOW
THE PLANT TABLES FOR FURTHER PLANTING INSTRUCTIONS.
In general, hardwood, will c... rt of bare root vegemtian planted at a target der. try of 680 stems
per. re, so. Id on en a' by 8' gr id. Sel red spec ies shall be pIamed according to their wetnes Flood Plain Permanent Seed Mixture
tolemrceand the arnicip3tei wetness of theplanting arees. Barem shallbeplanted Inthe
dalgnated hatched areasesshoran onthep,w,, Nonh,lh,d,,,,,,th,fl,,dpl,i,th,tare Scientific Name CommonName %ofMixWm SeedincDensily
delgnated as Irvasirre species removal areas will also regslre here root plantings. Tod g-,d, Hg Blue Stem 15% 12-15
tadensariSOSa Be arTe 11 10°b 12-15
C vul d F 5 2°k 12 5
1
Live Stakes
SCIBrdific Name
Cgthalan(hus ""demo"s Common Name
Buttnbtsh Tolerance
OBL
Camusamamum
Sahc nigra SIlly Dogwood
BIa=k Willow FACW+
0BL
Sambuc d Elderberry FACW
ptnot ea ec? 5 -
CIsmaeoisia /asciulata Partridge Pea 15% 12-15
Flymus virgmr... Uuginia Wild Rye 15% 12-15
Iol.hyrium s;oparum Little Blue Stem 20% 12-15
A permanent se d t of,at w grasses and farbs shau h applied t all di t rb d area, of the
s to Separate mi t provided f't re H and for flood pi i The permanent
seed mirxtwe for stream M ks hall be applied order t provide rapid rabilt of ti cry r. )
stream hanla and t p lop Thepermanent d k f floodplara shell be acid ted to all
Lives take, shallb installed all the stream banks trotgh,,t to projrarea Stke hall be
irxtalled randomly with respect to species, 2 to3 apart gt gl p g along the ou¢de other dst-mbed ¢d of exist gtrse lino, to provide rapid growth of herby=wiry gr...d 1 /
cover with a high biological habitatvalue I
of bends ard4t 6 apart rrs,g Va,smarspacing along the bam, of straight riffle sections
(maimum of 20%Bla_,WiIllow) . Stakes shell be select vely placed on exislingvegetated stream

P
banla

T -
eel ?? IM
EEL
snBR aR elyen
12 0
z et°r,rt

x°p
a
aft ' © v
C
ibp lrc ansn
?
wo° ga6°n ..'L4 sv ama? e ? aaecee,
?e?2n^
00
CULFIL l0v?ma
..
' ° g°
L U
11+00 kna?n +vY' ?
?
oa .Y
Mg yav_pk

III aid''

Ia 6

a ale J

t
k/ Ian:n \ \
© \ i
12d h
._ ,,. eQ e asb 1
a 12"
ar c
sv?mane 6?,. \'nQ ?? M m\? %?? §? ,e 7Brp0psn \,
2v ?e45 to \..
cvm o. o ? ? a nsn ?\\...? /.
r
19
e e?r' eRw ° ?`
2W
l -
PRELIMIN Y`a1PLANS
no iQS Luse 4@646oxa?yir1rcoN
`-?-?
°ow
r
No. Revision Date By Designer Scale sneew
DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN COMMENTS DV0808 CCHMI HW WeR -? McKEE CREEK VEGETATION PLANTING PLAN WITHERS &- RAV E N E L
1 FINAL RESTORATION TpN PLAN COMMENTS 08/15/08 CNW Drawn By Date MFC AUGUST 2008 REACH 2 & CLEAR CREEK
?m Checked By Job No. ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS 7
E CHW 2070568.00 CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 111MacaenanDmertm,NoMCSOllna27e11 W1:819AW3340 r ::slseeT-WOe mw.wlmemm+end.ome
12.0 Appendices
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
Appendix 1- Project Site Photographs
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
L _ ? 4 t
Photograph 2: View of the floodplain of feature A (Clear Creek) (see Figure 4a and 4b).
McKee Creek ERTR I of 16
Photograph 1: View of feature A (Clear Creek) just upstream of its
confluence with feature B (see Figure 4a and 4b).

Photograph 3: View of the pasture land adjacent to feature A (see Figure 4a and 4b).
McKee Creek ERTR 2o
If 16
Photograph 4: View of the section of stream channel that was
evaluated in stream form #1 (see Figure 4a and 4b).
31
.S
{

?r
y
_ -
Tr
. ? - ;

x ?F

f, f _ t

7
7

Photograph 6: View of feature D as described by stream form #2 (see Figure 4a and 4b).
McKee Creek ERTR 3o
If 16
Photograph 5: View of the forested floodplain at the confluence of
feature A (Clear Creek) and feature B (McKee Creek) (see Figure 4a and 4b).
Photograph 7: View of the wetland just north of Peach Orchard Rd along feature B
demarcated by wetland flags 107A&B through 110A & 112B (see Figure 4a and 4b).
Photograph 8: View of feature B (McKee Creek) south of Peach Orchard Rd (see Figure
4a and 4b).
McKee Creek ERTR 4o
If 16
Photograph 9

11 View of feature E just below flag #113 (start channel) (see Figure 4a and
4b).
McKee Creek ERTR 5o
If 16
Photograph 10: View of the ephemeral channel as
described by stream form #4 (see Figure 4a and 4b).
i

Photograph 12: Clear Creek Cross-Section 2
McKee Creek ERTR 6o
If 16
Photograph 11: Clear Creek Cross-Section 1

11
W
'

McKee Creek ERTR 7o
If 16
Photograph 13: Clear Creek Cross-Section 3
4114
Photograph 15: Clear Creek Cross-Section 5
i*6 .-

Photograph 16: Clear Creek Cross-Section 6
McKee Creek ERTR 8o
If 16
McKee Creek ERTR 9o
If 16
Photograph 17: Clear Creek Cross-Section 7
Photograph 18: Clear Creek Cross-Section 8
McKee Creek ERTR 10 of 16
Photograph 19: McKee Creek Cross-Section 1
Photograph 20: McKee Creek Cross-Section 2
McKee Creek ERTR 11 of 16
Photograph 21: McKee Creek Cross-Section 3
Photograph 22: McKee Creek Cross-Section 4
McKee Creek ERTR 12 of 16
Photograph 23: McKee Creek Cross-Section 5
Photograph 24: McKee Creek Cross-Section 6
McKee Creek ERTR 13 of 16
Photograph 25: McKee Creek Cross-Section 7
Photograph 26: McKee Creek Cross-Section 8
McKee Creek ERTR 14 of 16
Photograph 27: McKee Creek Cross-Section 9
Photograph 28: McKee Creek Cross-Section 10
PI
4
McKee Creek ERTR 15 of 16
Photograph 29: McKee Creek Cross-Section 11
Photograph 31: McKee Creek Log on Reach 1 at End of topographic mapping upstream
from bridge on Peach Orchard Road
McKee Creek ERTR 16 of 16
Photograph 32: McKee Creek Stagnate Water Area on Reach 1
Appendix 2 - Project Site USACE Routine Wetlands
Determination Data Forms
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
DATA FORM #1
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: W&R Project # -02070568 Date: 7-17-07
Applicant/ Owner: NC-EEP County: Cabarrus
State: NC
Investigator: Luke Tuschak Todd Preunin eg r
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No II
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No Community IDCow
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes II No Pasture
(explain on reverse if needed)
Transect ID: --
PlotID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Impatiens capensis Herb FACW 9.
2. Eulalia viminea Herb FAC 10.
3. Verbesina alternifolia Herb FAC 11.
4. Salix nigra Tree OBL 12.
5. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree FACW 13.
6. Gelditrsia tricanthos Tree FAC- 14.
7. Celtis laevigata Tree FACW 15.
8. Juniperus virgininia Tree FACU- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 75 O/o
Remarks:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present
HYDROLOGY
II Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
II Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other II Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available II Water Marks
II Drift Lines
Field Observations: II Sediment Deposits
II Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: --- (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: II Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
II Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: --- (in.) II Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hydrology Indicators Absent
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewalca sandy Loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? YesII NoII
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10" 10YR 4/4 Clay Loam
11-12" 10YR 5/3 Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol II Concretions
II Histic Epipedon II High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
IIAquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
II Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
II Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric Soils Absent
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes M No II
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes II No M
Hydric Soils Present? Yes II No M
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? YesII Nom
Remarks:
DATA FORM #2
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: W&R Project # -02070568 Date: 7-17-07
Applicant/ Owner: NC-EEP County: Cabarrus
State: NC
Investigator: Luke Tuschak Todd Preunin eg r
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No II
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No Community ID: Vernal
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes II No pool
(explain on reverse if needed)
Transect ID: --
PlotID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Betula nigra Tree FACW 9.
2. Sagittaria latifolia Herb OBL 10.
3. Carex Sp. Herb FACW 11.
4. Salix nigra Tree OBL 12.
5. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree FACW 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present
HYDROLOGY
II Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
II Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other II Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available M Water Marks
II Drift Lines
Field Observations: II Sediment Deposits
II Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: --- (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: --- (in.) II Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hydrology Indicators Present
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewalca sandy Loam Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? YesII NoII
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5" 10YR 511 Clay Loam 50%
0-5" 10YR 4/4 Clay Loam 50%
6-12" 10YR 4/1 Clay 50%
7.5YR 4/4 Clay 50%
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol II Concretions
II Histic Epipedon II High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
IIAquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
M Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
M Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric Soils Present
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes M No II
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes M No II
Hydric Soils Present? Yes M No ?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yeses NoII
Remarks:
DATA FORM #3
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: W&R Project # -02070568 Date: 7-17-07
Applicant/ Owner: NC-EEP County: Cabarrus
State: NC
Investigator: Luke Tuschak Todd Preunin eg r
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No II
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No Community ID: Vernal
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes II No pool
(explain on reverse if needed)
Transect ID: --
PlotID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Quercus alba Tree FACU 9.
2. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FAC 10.
3. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 11.
4. Fagus grandifolia Tree NI 12.
5. CM a ovalis Tree FACU 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 40 O/o
Remarks:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Absent
HYDROLOGY
II Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
II Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other II Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available II Water Marks
II Drift Lines
Field Observations: II Sediment Deposits
II Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: --- (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: II Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
II Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: --- (in.) 0 Local Soil Survey Data
II FAC-Neutral Test
II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hydrology Indicators Absent
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Enon Sandy Loam Drainage Class: Well Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Thermic Ultic Hapludalfs Confirm Mapped Type? YesII NoII
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12" 10YR 5/6 Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol II Concretions
II Histic Epipedon II High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
IIAquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
II Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
II Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric Soils Absent
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes[] No M
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes II No M
Hydric Soils Present? Yes II No M
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? YesII Nom
Remarks:
Appendix 3 - Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ..? Y" . (? Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County ?
? e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 "? 04 (.e tX
I
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong,
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1- 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0

=
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloav (Subtotal = Cf. S_ 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 ®3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es = 1.
Cy-
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ?.?. 2-5)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted 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
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 1.5
29 b Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: P_L (eek_ Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent /?` S County:
((((J?J--••
if>_ 19 or perennial if? 30 J ? aYIrV0, e.g_ Quad Name: o
A_ Geomomholoav (Subtotal = t. ?) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0. 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloav (Subtotal=
1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es = 1
C_ Bioloav (Subtotal = s - S 1
20L. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
o ??l
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: - /?„ ®:? Project:?& Latitude:
Evaluator: / r Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 &ka rro-S e. g. Quad Name:
A_ Geomornholoav (Subtotal = 1 F__ Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 + 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
QED 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloov fSubtotal = _? 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season
l) 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 CLD 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C_ Biolocly (Subtotal = )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 .0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians co 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
.? /.2/
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ';t- /7 O Project:. e eet_ Latitude:
Evaluator: /7 ---?? Site: Longitude:
Total Points`-: /} Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: / ' i e. g. Quad Name:
r?Ws
if ? 19 or perennial if ?: 30

m. ueuniui ituio (subtotal= Lv-o ) HuJGHI
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 YVt.!dK IV]UUCI dIC
1 2 Jt1V119
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 (ED 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
o = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloov (Subtotal = /•S 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season CD 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 .5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? o = 0 Yes = 1.5
C.. Biolociv (Subtotal = "7 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 .0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ® 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0 Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

'02?
I USACE AID# DWQ # Site / (indicate on attached map) 1
?• S
L
UALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:
3. Date of evaluation: ;z - D?
5. Name of stream: Unoraa -10a, 4 M646--c ek
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:s-o reE4-
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
2. Evaluator's name: Toll l ID . L

4. Time of evaluation: ,6?<Py Aeesrtaarn
r•
6. River basin: 1,-Jk A
8. Stream order: _3!y an
10. County: (??,.baPlu?S
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): -jS 2(o ?.) elll Longitude (ex. -77.556611): 1('. 4 3 j?) o W
14. Proposed channel work (if
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? eNO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? O NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ONO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial ?% Agricultural
6% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other (
//
22. Bankful] width: A ? 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): .3- 41'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments: 3n cki S-h241ft-- S
Evaluator's Signature Date ;Z,i?
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
15. Recent weather conditions: i ?
16. Site conditions at time of visit: f, a42t, K
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
E( ORhJG10N POINT RANGE
CIJAR AC`TERISTiCS - SCORE
Coastal l'iedrnunt Nlountain
Presence of tloN, /persistent pools in sLe:anr
1 i o
no 1lmti, or sat(itA on 0: ?ttotp, How m:as amts) - ?
- P
EN idence of past hung ?n alteration
- (? O S (1 ti 3
(r?stcn?nc ?iltcralu>n fl 0
nu ,rltcration itid' pour(s)
Riporian Zone -
trio hu[ILr 0 ?unli??uou?_ ??i ? huller may posit,) ? - -
1 F.N rdence of nutrient or chc rnical disch ar ,es U ) f U
(?+tCn>I? c (llS?hd[?CS 0_ no
Cll ;C hBr? ?? -Ill 1A po1111?) --
,? _ (;roundw ?ter discharge ) i ) )
(no dischai_c 1, Apr in<L?1 ccps_ ,tlan(l,_ clu. rnas pi,in(s) - -
r; Presencc of adi scent fl oodplain
no tlo„? p ) (-,1 0 l
1 lain 0, cxt?nsi\ ? tlowlplaul rn;n x?inl5
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0 ) 1 l)
?"' -- (dcepl?entrenched (1: 11cgricnt iIoo(lin- matt u?int?) -- -- -- j
Presence of rdjaeent tvdhnds
5 0 (? O -1 1'i
(nn wetlands 0 litg? irijacent wctltand, rn;t,: prints)
Channel sinuosity
9 1 (j > U U
(evtcn?,ne chann<liiatinn 0 natural meander max romt_,)
10 Sediment input O -1 (1 1 - y
(cs1Cn (? c dcpo"ilwn ` 0; tulle or ni) selhnlent P: p?tfntti)
Size & dnersit} of channel bed suhstr.ite o?
(iinr, hiuix, enuu, - O: I,u,c_ dl? rsc sues -- nil" ?()Irlk)
FN i(icncc of channel incision or widenin-
l_'_ 0 ti O 1 (i-- 5
?• --- ? (?hcplr inciscd 0; sLihlc hcri ?L hank, rna? pUUlt,)
Presence of major henk failures
p ?) I
_ (?.•v?r? uo??oiG 0 nc? ?ro?iun_ ?t?ihlc L ii?k? ma>, nint_
r - - - r --
? 11 s
O,
? ( e root depth andcd 1n I????r?, n ?huhauf n-k?ma? point.) z
no is ihlc O }u ? -- O O,
!. Impact by wricultnrc, liscstocl:, or timber production
I O - l Il
(,nb_ tnntial ianp,ict 0 no t vidrnce rnrix print>
l
of riffle- wog/ri a ale- Wool
I (i
Presence complexes ratites i i > pies or pool} (l; ileces
nrix p?,inl,) t) - O Il 6
habitat Complexity
` l7 O 6 0 -ii 0 6
(hitic ran no hahila( 0: ficUCnt. ? lncii h3hitFtk ma,Lr,u1ts) -
Canopy courage over ,treanibed
.? [ E () I O
In() s iri m \ rectal i, n O; continuou, cano,y - m ix Points)
x
- -
tiulstratc enheddcdness
I (?l?ct,l?- ?nibcddrrl U:luo?r st?u?turc m.iti)
Presence ofstream inNertebratcs (,cc p iL?o -1)
(rat) C?adcncc 0: corr1mon, sum nnis t? pes m i.v??omt?)
21 Presence of a m phibians
Q (no cvidencc - U; comniori. nunicrolis 1?'hcs -m.)v potntsi 0 I 0- 0 t
Presence of fish
0 () -1 O -1 1 4
(rno cvadrncc 01 common, numcivu» t pcs mix pouil5) [) - -
2i ?-
f ??idcncc of «rldlafe if . se
O5
( no C\ idcncc 0; abundant c? id?.ncr mix puuils)- -
Total Points Possible (OU 100 l0(1
'voty, S('(w (also cntcr on first 1xi('10
_ I
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
I USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) ,
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET f
-
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: ?- f
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: ,DcloL JP
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: ,--af fv f ernasr.
5. Name of stream: /v,??e? ?eeelC 6. River basin: ye-dk,A P;uc--- Fet5irt
7. Approximate drainage area: /+ 8. Stream order/: y
9. Length of reach evaluated: SO fe--e 10. County: a6Q,-/& ' (v,k,ri, e
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3S--,2W1 °N Longitude (ex. -77.556611): .. ? ??1 ~tJ
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): L Spske,,.?
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map?<0 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: l0 % Residential
Q O % Forested
-Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
m point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 67-S )NO
Ift-el
% Commercial % Industrial e"0% Agricultural
% Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 201- Z 1 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5--,6 1
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends AFrequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ? Comments:
Evaluator's Signature `7i? - ? Date ?7
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I((r`O lEGIC N?POrIN'1 R,?Nt?l '' SCORE
C"HARAC,F F1tISTIC'S -
Mountain
I Presence of flo),v / persistent pooh in strcanr
-? (fit) flaw' or srtur,rtic,n 0. ?.uun?t flow may poirl,)
I;Nidurce of past huruan alteration
- O O t)
(.?tcr ??e ??It?i 1u?>n 0; nu ?Itcrttiim - ?ti?.r????mt,?}
Riparian iooe h
I (i
Irm huller 0: buflcr - nrlx poullti) ---
- A idence of nutrient or cheinrral dischm-es
U- ti O 0 -4
l)_
_ roundNti.iler disthan u - - --
<<?o l5_ etc_ ma>
Presence of uijaccnt 11oodplain
1 (]it) 0 1 0 4 flnudpla?n U; czt?mnc Il<xxl .lain ma?n?int?) _
,"t _ hitrcnchmcut I tloodpl;iin recess 0 ) { 1)
(deeply cntiv 11i6ed Q Creeueutlloodin? -n??1x poinr?l
Presurce of r ijacent %e0111nds - - -
5 ` (16 U? fl Z 13
(n?? ,vctl.?nds - U, lar??c <Eill<iccnt ?:ctl;?ixls - nrl?x?int,)
C?h:uutel sinuosi(N 0 U -I (1 3 3
cxtcmi?c chann?lirrtiun 0: natural n??and??r nr.1.x puill
Sediment input
Iii 0 O 1 U 1
e?trn n-c d?p?)?itiun 0-I ktlc or rn 5cdimcnt 111(1x pwu1t,)
Size & diNcrsit} of channel bed mhstrate O 1 0 _ ?{
(t lrl'_ l(?m<?q:'ni ?u? 0 I u L'e. ijn ? l ??1 ?I/cS Ir l'L hulnt,}
FN idcnct ol'chauncl incuro? or Ntiidcnino 3
(deeply inci5cd 0- ?I,?llc 11(11 & hark, fmix poilll )
Presence of major bank failures _
? ? f ,?•?crc ??o:i?in U: ro ??n<i?,n, t;ihl_?; hanky n?a? 4?i?int.) li _ _
Rool depth and dcnsitN on banks
.r 14 0 0 1 0- 5
r Itnn %i?ihlc r?x,u ?lcn,c rnr?t? tlunl;rf?uut may pnu?t?)
Impact b% wricidture, lkcstock or timber production
(,uh?t innal i;n ul -0 no e? ?d?nrc nrixJ)onit>) -- -
Presence of riffle-poollripple-punt complexcs
f (i I (1 i ? 0 ? t) Ci
(nn iihdc tiJ,?lc, ?_u ,not, U ?? It-dcvcjwcd - m,rxyrunts) ./
habitat complexit'N
Iu? 0 C, 0 6 CI 6
(little ur ns 11 ibitit f!, fl uuCnt, V uicd hibi( rt, uiax-int?
( ) --
? 1?7 _?:urop? coi crarrl cr strtambtrd
15 0 t) - U
? '; I f n?, ,h,?clin r;=ctat ?,i? (.l, ?,?ntu?ttnu ca??r?i?}' ma? potnt,) - ,
j substrate curbcddcdncss
l ?l V':1 0 i p i
(drephenihcdded t), torn <tructurc nri\)
Presence of stream inxertchrates 1 >cc p i _c 4)
(m) c?iduicr - 0 CwI1111cm, nunicrnus t? pcs -- nlax point")
J
l Presence of :uu ?hrbians ?
-I 0 1 0 4 -
J (uo (%%JLIcncc -0- comnit)n, Ilillmruu, types niax poilitsj j Prescnee of fish 1
1 0 I 0- =1 t_) 4
uu ct idcncc 0, ct,11unun_ nrioicouls 1v ?cs inax point)
1 vidcnce of Nsddlife use
(n?, c% idercc U. abundant :%idcncc n1'L1xJ-mnl,1
Total Points Possible 100 IOU 100
'Ct}' All SCORE (<11.so k:rltCr vll f ust ptl(,e;)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
North Carolina Division of.Water Quality Stream Identification Form, ; Version 3.1
.Date: Project:• L' 2 Latitude:.
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermitt t County: e.g- if? 19 or perennial if _> 3 Quad Name:
AI t W L Ni d t' St
r,. Geomor ho o (Subtotal - ) ?sen ca o era rpny
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or.stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 1 .2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 ( 2 3
.7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second. or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence-
C??
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
-R_ Hvdroloav (Subtotal
14. Groundwater flow/discharge. 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or. rowin season 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 ® 0.5 .0
17. Sediment on plants or debris .0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 1.5
.. Bioloov (Subtotal
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
.21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish (} 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5. 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ® 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC 0.5; FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0.; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side //of`this form for additional nooses.)

j USAACE AID# DWQ # Site J f(indicate on attached map)

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
A;p
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name:,
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream:
7. Approximate drainage
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
6. River basin: kI A
8. Stream order 4s?
10. County: -&ZdR "As
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): /Vme_
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO . 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _X_% Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: - 1J1 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1
24. Channel slope down center of stream: V Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
innto a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I r _ ["CORt?:(JON POPS-F RAN(4,
f'II.?Rr1t'1hFR1STI{'S - T - '? S(`OKF`
( oalst:tl Piedmont Nlouotain
t Prescitce of flott / her, iktcut pools in Arcam t U i 1
(nn flm, tit sahil"noll 01stw;l- 11o", nr.. ....... -t
itlcncc of hssf huttr.rn .alteration 0- 0
(e?t?n; n ? - a l t u a t i m i t - t ) ; ni) a l l c r i 11 _ 1 0 1 1 11N I O H lt?1 i
Kih•rri:rrt zone ? I
? (Iris hU?ICC O_ C??IllICfI(?tl? A1?1?1' itI1?1Ci Ill?l? ltt?lllt?l
1.??idencc of nutrient or
chcorical dtsch:u?c?
0_ Ilk)
,?li
i '
( ruundtF tter drxbar??c ? {)_ i ? O `? ?
I l l ntl:. rtc_ nl.lx
?'` ? Prcxncc of rd trcnt tlu?rd Clain I - ?_ -- -
r? 6 i i` 1 (? - 11 r1 1 ? Q I ?
(tto (lcnl?lhl Fin f? ?.,:It n t ? tluu?i(il un mas?u> 1 ntrcnchntent' floodhl un uccvs
'-' (?I i?(,cii(i?.nclicl 11= Ircyuc?i( il??udu??? n?,ir ?,t,it???l =Prrscnu?ot 1dFaantw'ctlands '- - ` -'
(nu ?tl,u„{s l trs,e ?l?l,?t?ctit ,??tl;,n?l, fwty hoiitt>}
( h:rIt neliIt uuSit? --
1
(CS lmri?nc cltanlx•li, at?t?ri ?)- nan?,a nic:ox ?r - rli C, --
I O ? Scdinuni input t? ; ? rl ?
(,°alt n I,r,, drt??titi?,il [1: liulr nr r<<, ?;??Gnr?n? nl,ts I,?,jti',? - i
tiiic & diNcr,ih of ch:rmrel bed mbstrrtc
? 1 'V".1 " t l I I i i i
{t171.' ?ll?t IU` ?Ifi. iif - It; 1,!l LC, lll\ tiG til!? -- I71 i\ Pollit •? I - ?? 1 l
l;?ufunr of ch:rnncl incr.ion or ??idcnin?? _ t (
?- (c3 hl,, iil, ,:d U stnnl h??t \ halm nrt.? t?u?l?l
Pr e,?cncc of ni ilor b,1111, Failures - p
fC CI-l)>I(il1 tt_ IIU Li w I(VL 1':If lf.'? ri71V pi)lflt?) ! ?.
i I I knot dchf l mof dcrrslt? on h:uihs -t ----
nt> ? isihl i tillollf_1i?,tt1 rnth')int?:}
'r Impact h) wrict lotre, li?cstocl , of timber hroducfirut --
t uhaintil a ull ct 0 11o c\t?i? nc? In t _p w t,)
1t
Pr e.utce o1 r rlllc -pool/ripple-pool honl tontptcsc? -
_ (nu ril[7?,;"rihl?lcs t t lu?t,l` +1 ??Il tl ??c'1 'h??i l ? l? i?,( it.t ? I ?
ILIbit:d ccmihlextt>
? 1 vr nu h l6itai t halucnt_ ? uic(i halti?sts - rn.iN
-a ? lu>illl,) i -
----- -
15 ( tnop coN era weo-*crsirc:tmhcd
?h1 1in ?? ,clxfinn -U1
ly I Snhctratc cnrbeddcdnc,s I ? ?
J (tic: ?lh°??llh???lcl?aj ii; Itu? ? 1tu?nlr.• - ;?l:is) ., ? i i
- I
,rl Prescnce of stream inNertcbr itcs r t??, ?)
j110 C%i?lCri« ll c(I;l; u<>>, riulil R u_ [J), nl,t.l?t?ult,l
re"encc of:tmphtrnan? ? l
anon; n_ uum uu i.l?" nlax p)1111, 1
I risence of fr,,ir 1 - -- -
1 ?tdcnrc oI Fsildh1,C u1A,
t llm Lt I?Ic`Ili; ?' l1, 3hL?f1 1.'lll c iJ 31ct, Ill;tC f???l tl r??
TotA Points Possihlc .` I ilf] 100, 1()11 j
i
101 1L SCORE (,ikt) c{?tcr ()n tir:,t p t,_,C i
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Form- Version 3.1

Date: 2 _02- Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points: / Other
Stream is at least intermittent lam' County:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 , e. g. Quad Name:
A_ Geomoroholoov (Subtotal = l f 1 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity -? 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Activelrelic floodplain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
KO-50
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloov (Subtotal = ? 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season

P

1

2

3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0. 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? o = 0) 1 Yes = 1.5
C_ Bioloav (Subtotal =? ) `J
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 b Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; ACW = 0.75; BL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other 1.5 SAV 2.0; Other 00
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on ce of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
USACE AID# DWQ # Sit # ? dicate on attached map)
`a STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under. assessment:
1. Applicant's name:
3. Date of evaluation:
5. Name of stream:&[,-J?- AE>
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 5a
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name: 4 t,-k
4. Time of evaluation:1I 42, 06
6. River basin: /&J r-. lC.

8. Stream order:: J 2-
10. County: C&?r (6,f
12. Subdivision name (if any):.
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):_
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any)
15. Recent weather
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use
22. Bankfull width:
% Residential % Commercial
% Forested
% Industrial % Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged % Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals. in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

° CIi RAChFIXISTICS ti(Y)IZI"
., - Co..1sL11 }'icllmont ? 1lonnt;yin

t.. t'rescncc of tluN? / 11crsistc11t pools 111 shranr

1 tn:? flint or :;ulln,l1011 O. trt?n floe, 111;lx pofllt?)
t:', i(lcncc of poll 111,111:111 alteraiiolt
aJlcl doom 0, flo aliclMuln ill
<1.J?[?nlis)
j
1 ? }Zipariau rune
(1 G f I /
Wo bull [ 0 0,111 I'll Its 1 's1 ICl ],uH? ;TlaA 17 ,1111 ?) j
[:citlcnec of nutrient or chcnlical
f) j

J { ( rou11d?i lterdlsch 1r?,,c T tl Q
Oll1 Ll l 11; II' t); ' a.? CtC.
I'rc.cnCC of r+llaecol t11iol1?,laill
I
0
-
-
r` -
(u?l fl
oI,?1?l;Iii1 0 c?i?n 1???iloocl?lanl m:1;? Ir,lrlr?l I
i

? i
7 l,ntrenc11ulcnt / tloodpl:lin
access
?

U ? i u
1

11 >
? _? (11c?hl???nlr?n?:h?,{ (1;fie?urnt [Irildin:? rn:n Ixlin[,l ?,
? .
- --- -
?
-
1 j ?'rexucc of itllaccnt wcti:uuls a
U
ul?:w(lt?ti 1C?rl.f; rn,lx ?ulint j
{ ('h;uinel sinuusit? j
(c?t?n 1?? rll.ulri?[1 .tlon (i: n,1tu al nl?<n?I,r ?r1z unnI.")_ I ?
l U- Sediment input > l 1
t?.AlUl-1`,'C ??? ?(?;?il Il Illlll i,C [?i) ?C1?IIIl?l11: r 1,1A ltlllif
size <A i ivr.it? of c11anne} bed luh tratc

j
j_ FN idcncc of ch:l11ncl incision or 1ti idcuillo
_
1) - 1 f l ?
0 _ i
??
tlC?: lib Ink I 'il ll_ ';1111110 il:'(1 ice. f?:3 [lf,? film: 11,111151
_ 1'rcccncc ref m zj011- h Ill fanlurc?
? - y
`-+ I
l ?? A . ! Cf?l . . C,1' 11 rlil <:f ?? kit'., cl? {il? ?12L171 -- rp ?., 77(,10 t ,';
-
unL dtpfh ,and dc?6 ' un llmll;s
Roof
? I
I
3?

?=?? ? ? 1n1Er:lct b?1?riculture, Ii?rslucJ;, or tir11her prudnctiun ??
- - {?1;1-1>l,t?l21Bi 1'll 1'?[CL {). IIU Cl UlCr1C? 111211 11U71 [l?) - ---?.
l l _ ? 1'rc.cncr of riltlc-pooUrippic punt conlplc ?e? O ! _
(no ufli?>" Sllr; or iv1ok fl_ %t,!H (1 kl - 111.1x_ Iv,i;ILS)
+? ? ?;_( }1:16itat complesrt} ? ?
( u1c, o; nu ???ILiLaf (t i c?iucw- a;tncd habit tt? u1a?:-pllrnl )
( rnop} corer 1?c uNcr slreamhcd
,..r, ) n?? (1 1 7111 ? c curu?,n (1 r elm, Flu c n.
ti11h?tratc cnlbcddcd11c?s
1 ,t) ? 1'rese nee ul strcanl ul?crichr ltcs r ?? 11:1. ?? i) ? U 1 U
_ :iH Lt1,, ?I
i'? ? - i )Il,? 0? ft_l ? IiC l.)_ ?2irlitlli. 1. 11ll 111 R,[, t}_l)?. rll?.? 1 I 1 I ll _.. .1
1 resc11cc ?if:ti lIIhlhlaIf 1 (il ?'sl {J liC t?? 0 1 111,lrl_. 1111[LI, Ioll'- tvll.,, - IIl '< }t?71RI .l ?. 1--
i rrscncc of fish
11 , Ilk i, .rIlnltIf I Ill; nl,l?+l15ty11??? nl : f?2+itl+:.1 O l
l tidcncc or NN ildhtc till -
(no
Tofal Points 1'ossihlc -100
1:(x`I-AL :Sf' MF, (?11s?? cn[cr ?ltriir.t E??i??e)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

U b
tl ? l
t?
S
3
V
0

tt
I (J l) I
I
y
S?
2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
.Date: Project.- t?° • ? Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent s? County: S /
if? 19 or erenniat if? 30 L e. g- Quad Name:
A. Geomomhoioay (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak M(AQr-<rte Stronq
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 cf) 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
.7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Hea.dcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0-5 4-- - 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1.5
13.'Second. or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
1-170- ___0__1)
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
'R Hvrirr?lonv (Snhtntal = I?- )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge. 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season r?
(J 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 ?+ m 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris .0/ 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 _5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? o = 0 Yes = 1.5
:C. Bioloav (Subtotal = .? 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel .3 2Q 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0:5. 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae.; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; ACW = 0.7 - OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0.; Other= 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants; Item 29 focuses o ie presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
FJSACE AID#
DWQ#.
# Z (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET t ?T y
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: ,Le..? ?g ?_cH
3. Date of evaluation:-7-2-Y- 6-1 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: a7- /-v (7-ger?W 6. River basin: X? ki /t 1e w-r 3 ASi?-
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream orderly
10. County: yf?s
12. Subdivision name (if any):_
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):_
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any)
15. Recent weather conditi
16. Site conditions at time of v
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
LS-0/6 Forested %
22. Bankfull width: 44 ?e
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%)
.35-0/o Commercial % Industrial
% Cleared / Logged % Other (-
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
SO % Agricultural
i
Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ? /. Comm
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-844I x 26.
. 1 i
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

CILAIl=1t'TF ItISTI(`ti S(`OM
- - - -- ('oc2sLi( Picdillont llountam
I'resence of flow / pcrsisleot pook in stream
(1) 11ovl or ,£itU-illtt011 U. s(rul?• ilov. mop, p. I; If
-
EN i(jenceof Im"I Illllll nl 2111crAioll
{c'Vtf:? Ilc Ella l,Lr[UR- f), Ilk) 711<IeUUiI 171)C pUIII[til
. It11) 111.-111 Y611 f` _ (1 - (,

1''%idcnce of nutrient or clicnlicif tllschal??c's O ?1 L 41
-- U --
_
? f (IrounthN:derdkcliaruc 1
. 1 (ul) l1;11-1-,c (I, p1 I11 'ti, 1?-11,. 1?ctl?tllll ctc_-..-ill.lA Swlll(`:) -

f
C, Presence of l1jacent floodplairl
0 t
q
o
(tlu 1lou?lp6tiii (1, rst, I? sic fl,?n?]pJaiu m<?lui[ri:;) _

lltru llAnlcllt J lloodplnln JccrtiS
t( ?
- (i ,?
tt
/
2
IIt tloti lll -'
1'rruncc cd Idjnccnt ?cctl Ind.v ? ? '
0 If '
Inc, ti??ctl,12u1, f) 11?z?r,i?? ltctrl tti,ll;tnd; ?ire:?wint?i

(a?t?_?l,n? ?h?uul? li a[?t,lt 7_ i;atl?t tl nl;an?fcr I)Iax ?cI'll It 1 --
5cdlllwfit input
t 1- _
knr U. fi,rlc,,: no
?,???Iioltnt n r: p?,intsl (I ?) i ll
1 i Sire .l diNcr.it? of ehanntl bed stlb?,trttc

l;?uicnccoichannclinci.iouor2tiidcniu??
I-
III?iC;ii (I' hell `,- ??Ei[11• fll fi' ltlltli>1 1 t
! ?.
.
- t'r"Lilie Of tll.llor f, IniC I'll dii CC'ti
Ill, cf -io[l- `I 117??_ hlLl ?? - fil,i`, h,ll ilttil

Pool depth and dell,'AN 1)12 l,;l llliti I
-

I Cll)', L?II??C Toot, (1: 11 -1(")l, 1?11,otj( ?lw?lt 171 ` 1011)1") i p
r, Imp.ict bF :i rieulture, liNuAocl or timber production
- 15. ?_, ??:,(lt,-t X181 Illl ,itCt (, Ili, k-`? kl_ cc 111;11, p'ull'.)
I1? (`reiujc+coftitilt
,l'ril2l'ielcol,llil7)t?
ll<,I
t
l,t,illi,
?ni?r112
l.,

i-

? ? _

l l;lbl(tt con2pleat}

t
t
O ?

?
(lilil? „r nil h?tl,itat t?. lirlp ?i?L i lncc] hrll IG1ts ln:?? plrini?? ? -
r
,
I (D

lS t I11 op'k covci -e oNer streanlbud

;).
(rlo .f <IJiI; ,?1anl,n tr cnninni ?u> c;llwp, t)II11
t > U

-
f?

1
nttlclidc
{
bubtii
i ?i
tc c?
l
10
_
i
i
(
t
ii
? ids: p1. , r
t?:t ii c rn.r;1
- -

-
I'rc,encc of,, tr c:iill imcrtcbr ite r r p;l i) 1 li (1

(Ilt7 1???Cl?l?l?l' - fl Ll](Ili (?i 1? I?i))rl. ?l tai t??l ., I?? 1? ??o ?jit ??1
- _.
--------------------------------------
t rc?,enl'eo1 anlpbihiill? J
(lll ?.F I?l" ILA.. (1 ?ii1P, ?7( f1. I1?1II1?IU l? t`.p" 1111 ? C, Illy)

Presence of 11tih -
?-- - 1u u;i,irl?cc -1l, ,rrnl?;?,?_ 1111r1lclolj-,nn1\ hcut?(,'?
1NulcnccofFVildlilen,e U j 3
Iul c.IJ,'Pc(2 )- ?,11un_lani ?%JJi -itcc: I1Yl': 111
I dial Points t'ossible )O
t ?? 1 il, ti(`Ol:(; (?tl c, c1it t oll lira
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
IUu
I 101)
2
Appendix 4 - Reference Site Photographs
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
Cross-Section 1 Riffle
McKee Creek (D07063S) I of 4
Reference Site Photos
Cross-Section 2 Pool
Cross-Section 3 Pool
McKee Creek (D07063S) 2 of 4
Reference Site Photos
McKee Creek (D07063S) 3 of 4
Reference Site Photos
Cross-Section 4 Riffle
Cross-Section 5 Riffle
Cross-Section 6 Pool
McKee Creek (D07063S) 4 of 4
Reference Site Photos
Appendix 5 - Reference Site USACE Routine Wetland
Determination Data Forms
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
L-0 ACI AIDII - lmW # Sitc 1 - (indicate on attached map)
„- STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
:?FFtt ?,.
? { aF 4 Q
,!Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: A/C• _ ED 2. Evaluator's name- d ?kk? T
3. Date of evaluation: --- 4. Time of evaluation: ; ely1 44coAsrer,,?
S. Name of stream: -J,)j)(0& _ 6. River basin: _ Cd??G w4t ?' fiVe r 6A%;e
7. Approximate drainage area:,
9. Length of reach evaluated: SD
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees-
Latitude (ex 34-912312):
.
8- Stream order: LAn"o+Jti
10. County:_ _A-4- ek?? ? -
12. Subdivision name (if any):__
Longitude (ex. -77-55661)):,
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other G1S Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-rLL
Gac_a.r4-- "' 3W' L-p?rtti±w. d_ i??c eti?r'rw ?? a 3r.nc,1._. e?.r_ct 5.?. Ztl(e.
14. Proposed channel work (ifany):__-+,?? _
15. Recent weather conditions:__3.(s4.
16. Site conditions at time of visit:__
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: - -Section 10 --Tidal Waters _ Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake iocated upstream of the evaluation point? ES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:- 4. 1 ASrr-
19. Does channel appear on L1SGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey'? 1?S NO --
121. Estimated watershed land use: 3P-% Residential 30% Commercial l 0 % Industrial % Agricultural
30 % Forested % Cleared / Logged -% Other (_ , Y - )
22. Bankfull width:-- 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):__ Z'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -X Frequent meander -Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc_ Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion_ Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet- Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section- Where there are obvious changes in the character ofa stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):-- Comments:- 'Rr-4je Ac C -
Evaluator's Signature- Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change- version 06/03_ To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

u. u. ? -Q?Q uu m uuas+at sueams
Appendix 6 - Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification
Forms
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
1
a
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Ident ification Form; Version 3.1 I

Project:
Date: I .01_ 0e)
Latitude:

Evaluator: } Site: -Longitude: !- ?
Total Points: -CIiQ1?rc? Other
Stream is at least intermittent y ?? S County=
!F e.g. Quad Na me:
if? 19 or perennial d> 30
A. GeomorpholNy (Subtotal) 7-4.5 ? } -Absent _WeaR. Moderate Strong
V. Continuous bed and bank 0 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 -- - - -
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
_
sorting 0
4. Soil texture or stream substrate 1 2 _
-
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 _v 1 e
1
2 3 -
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 _
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
deposits 0
8. Recent alluvial 2 3
-
9 a Natural levees 0 2 3
?
10. Headcuts 3 _ 1 2 3
,
11. Grade controls _ 0
i 0.5 1.5
--
0::
12. Natural valley or dra'inageway _ 0.55 1 1 •?
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No = 0 Yes = 3
evidence.
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. 1iydrolargly?Subtotal_ II . S
2
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 - 1
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 2 (9
_ Water in channel -- dry orrowinq season
0
Leaflitter
16. 1 0.5
_
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0
-? 1 _ 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No 0 - Yes _
C. Biology (Subtotal= 0v S ) - - -
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 _ 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3
- _ 2 1 0
0
22. Crayfish 5 1 1.5
21 Bivalves - - v 0 - 2 3
24. Fish' 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians T -0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 - Y
. Filamentous algae; periphyton
27 2 3
_
acteria/fungus_ rSl.
oxidizing b
28. Iron _ 0.5 1 _ _1_5
_
_
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0_5; FACW = 015; OBL1.5 SAV = 2_0; Other = 0
1' Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

Appendix 7 - HEGRAS Analysis
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)

R

S11.
l O
?k E

WIN EUGENEgqy??y««A 1DIVINE"'` ;

.0r 7t
EUGENE A. DIVINE
-1 t1w
_
S .rp 'r? Yfys. „PP` I iR ?1 4 4. Ib.. ?."
1 V?
?VFRTp}V
&
? AOL
STUDYAREA
.47
W!l
Rom,
Y?,7:' 4
q'.?asaA. Ai?" ,. A 3 fi jpl' `'' diN - q F „ Rp p b
I ? {?W 'C Rs "!I ? f
y
A KV
• - Y ?f ??'? ? gyp, "!'Y
j1Y
?'I 6
FIGURE -STUDY AREA MAP r ? ? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? L
McKee Creek Project (D07063S) r-4?ddj Cabarrus County, NC N ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Date: 10/04/07 ?i,( 111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina
1 inch equals 500 feet telephone: [phone] www.withersravenel.com

0
?a Q
W
V
00
N

3
a 0
r
n
N 00 d
N J
ST1NeA
W Vtto??A
-0
.?oNLT1?P)
ADDS D
SEc-,r,e
I4FG-t?fl3 ?'iY? ?
? I
I l,,r Zoo
Q0
0
McKee Creek Flood Study Plan: 1) dupp N83 1/21/2008 2) McKee Creek 2/13/2008 3) proposed 2/13/2008
Flow: McKee Creek - Duplicate Flows (N83)
McKee Creek Main
Legend

I I I I I I I I I I I I WS 100 YR - dupp N83
--------------'----
I I I I
I I I I ------!----------------'- ---------'--
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I WS 100YR-McKee Creek
I I I I --
WS 100 YR - proposed
Ground
600
I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I
------------
--- --; -- ---I - ------;----I----
I I II II I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I

0- I I I I
1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I __--_'? I I 1
I I 1
I I 1

I I I
I I I 1
.2
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I 1
a? I I I 1--- - I I I 1
w
I I I I I I I I
T --- T --- --- T

580 I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I----1----r---r--- ---,----1----1----1---
1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I

70- I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
- L - - - L - - - L - - - -'- - - - - - - -'- - - - L - - - L --- L--- ----I---

-'- - - -'- -
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I 1
' _--L_ I I I I I I I I 1
I I I II I I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
I I 1
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
Main Channel Distance (ft)
1 in Horiz. = 1400 ft 1 in Vert. = 7 ft
McKee Creek (D07063S)
FLOODSTUDY COMPARISON TABLE - McKee Creek
STREAM: McKee Creek Cabarrus County, NC
Date: 2/13/2008
WSEL from
FIS Duplicate WSEL
from HEC-RAS Existing Conditions Model Proposed Conditions Model

River Station

Profile
Discharge
(cfs)
WSEL
(ft.)
WSEL
(ft.)
(FIS WSEL -
Dup. WSEL)
WSEL
(ft.) (Ext.
WSEL - Dup.
WSEL)
WSEL
(ft.)
(Prop.WSEL-
Ext. WSEL)
15353 1oYR 1640 602.36 602.36 0 602.36
15353 25 YR 261o 603.73 603.73 0 603.73
15353 loo YR 3010 604.21 604.21 0 604.21 0
15353 500 YR 4170 605.45 6o5.45 0 605.45

14808 1oYR 1640 6oo 6oo.02 0.02 6oo.o1
14808 25 YR 261o 6o1.62 6o1.61 -0.01 6o1.61
14808 loo YR 3010 602.2 602.18 0.02 602.17 -0.01 602.17 0
14808 5oo YR 4170 603.58 603.61 0.03 603.6o

14341 1oYR 1640 597.88 598.18 0.3 597.94
14341 25 YR 261o 599-18 599-43 0.25 599-33
14341 loo YR 3010 599.7 599.67 0.03 599.97 0.3 599.89 -0.08
14341 5ooYR 4170 6oo.92 601.49 0.57 601.43

13788 1oYR 1640 596.88 597.48 o.6 596.94
13788 25 YR 261o 598.15 598.62 0.47 598.38
13788 1ooYR 3010 5 8.8 598-77 0.03 599.26 0.4 599-09 -0.17
13788 5ooYR 4170 600.39 6o1.og 0.7 6o1.o1

13431 1oYR 1640 597.29 596.81
13431 25 YR 261o 598.55 598.35
13431 loo YR 3010 599.25 599-11 -0.14
13431 5oo YR 4170 601.14 6o1.07

13226 1oYR 1640 597-01 596.6o
13226 25 YR 261o 598.04 597.97
13226 loo YR 3010 598-76 598-72 -0.04
13226 500 YR 4170 6o0.74 600.71

1286 1oYR 1923 593-94 596.68 2.74 596.22
12869 25 YR 2732 595.03 597.63 2.6 597.59
12869 loo YR 3272 595.6 595.61 -0.01 598.32 2.71 598.32 0
1286 5oo YR 4974 596.98 6o0.21 3.23 600.21

12694 1oYR 1923 595-82 594-43
12694 25 YR 2732 596.11 595.26
12694 loo YR 3272 596.53 595.90 -o.63
12694 5oo YR 4974 597-49 597-49

12394 1oYR 1923 592.25 591.26
12394 25 YR 2732 594-19 592.66
12394 loo YR 3272 594.55 593.65 -0.9
12394 5oo YR 4974 596.61 596-15

12219 1oYR 1923 589.68 591.92 2.24 591.o6
1221 25 YR 2732 590-85 593-39 2.54 592.66
12219 loo YR 3272 591.5 591.51 -0.01 594.22 2.71 593.55 -o.67
12219 5oo YR 4974 593.41 596.42 3.01 595.87

11687 1oYR 1923 586.77 591.69 4.92 590.70
11687 25 YR 2732 588.10 593-08 4.98 592.25
11687 loo YR 3272 58 588-96 0.04 593-86 4• 593-10 -0.76
11687 5oo YR 4974 591.35 595.93 4.58 595.31

11497 1oYR 1923 589.54 588.24
11497 25 YR 2732 590.70 589.58
11427 loo YR 3272 5 1.35 590-37 -0.98
11497 5ooYR 4974 592.98 592.15
McKee Creek (D07063S)
FLOODSTUDY COMPARISON TABLE - McKee Creek
STREAM: McKee Creek Cabarrus County, NC
Date: 2/13/2008
WSEL from
FIS Duplicate WSEL
from HEC-RAS Existing Conditions Model Proposed Conditions Model

River Station

Profile
Discharge
(cfs)
WSEL
(ft.)
WSEL
(ft.)
(FIS WSEL -
Dup. WSEL)
WSEL
(ft.) (Ext.
WSEL - Dup.
WSEL)
WSEL
(ft.)
(Prop.WSEL-
Ext. WSEL)

11274 1oYR 1923 586.36 586.62 0.26 586.43
11274 25 YR 2732 587.79 588.12 0.33 587.94
11274 loo YR 3272 588.7 588.74 -0.04 588.1 0.17 588.86 -0.05
11274 500 YR 4974 591.34 591.66 0.32 591.35

10362 1oYR 1923 582.13 584.58 2.45 583.68
10362 25YR 2732 583.59 585.65 2.o6 584.87
10362 loo YR 3272 584.44 586.28 1.84 585.54 -0.74
10362 5oo YR 4974 586.63 588.02 1.3 587.32

10028 1oYR 1923 582.94 582.62
10028 25 YR 2732 584.29 584.00
10028 loo YR 3272 585.01 584.68 -0.33
10028 5oo YR 4974 586.92 586.48

643 1oYR 1923 580.7 582.6 1. 582.3
643 25 YR 2732 582.1 583.70 1.51 583.63
9643 loo YR 3272 583 583.02 -0.02 584.27 1.25 584.24 -0.03
643 5oo YR 4974 585.0 585.82 0.73 585.83

9353 1oYR 1923 580.86 579.71
353 25 YR 2732 581.80 581.56
9353 loo YR 3272 582.23 582.08 -0.15
353 5oo YR 4974 584.55 584.43

go62 1oYR 1954 580.o6 580.o6 0 580.o6
062 25 YR 2748 581.43 581.43 0 581.43
062 loo YR 3296 582.2 582.24 -0.04 582.24 0 582.24 0
go62 5oo YR 5027 584.26 584.26 0 584.26

8226 1oYR 1954 577.36 577.36 0 577.36
8226 25 YR 2748 578.78 578.78 0 578.78
8226 loo YR 3296 579.6 579.65 -0.05 579.65 0 579.65 0
8226 5oo YR 5027 581.16 581.16 0 581.16

73o6 1oYR 1954 576.58 576.58 0 576.58
73o6 25 YR 2748 578.o4 578.04 0 578.04
73o6 loo YR 3296 578. 578-92 -0.02 578.2 0 578-92 o
73o6 500 YR 5027 580.00 580.00 0 580.00
McKee Creek Flood Study Plan: 1) McKee Creek 2) proposed
RS = 13226
602-
600
598
i?? 596-
C
°m
594
w 592
590
588
586
4700 4800 4900 5000
5100
Station (ft)
McKee Creek Flood Study Plan: 1) McKee Creek
RS = 13431
602
600
598
i?? 596-
C °- 594 -
a?
w 592 -
590
588
586
4700

Legend
k
WS 100 YR - McKee Creek
WS 100 YR - proposed
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground -McKee Creek
•
Bank Sta - McKee Creek
5200
Legend
k
WS 100 YR - McKee Creek
WS 100 YR - proposed
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground - McKee Creek
•
Bank Sta - McKee Creek
5300
2) proposed
4800 4900 5000 5100 5200
Station (ft)
McKee Creek Flood Study Plan: 1) McKee Creek 2) proposed
RS = 12394
c
0
N
W
bUb
594

-
592 -'- --- - - ------ - _ ---
-
------
---
----

590 - - -r-- -- -----'- - ---- - --- ----- ---- - -=- -'I--
-r-
-r- -r-- --
-r-- - ----- -
--- - - -r-- -
-r-- -
- --,-
---,- -r-
- - -r----
-r ---- ---,-
- -,- -r-
--- - ---
- ----,- -r-
- -F --
-1--
--r
-. -
- r--
- - - -
- irr-
- - -
- -
- - -r-- -
-
- - - - -
- --
_ - -ir
-
- -
- r
-
- r
-
- - - - -i--r-
-
- -
- -r
-
- r
-
- - - -ir
- -
- -
- r-
-
- -r--
-
- -
588 r t r
I
I r _ I
r Y Y I
r Y r I
r r r

-'- - -- - 1---1--1- -'-- - ---- -- ---J- -'- -L --- --- - -'- - --- - --'- - - --
586-

584-
Legend
k
WS 100 YR - McKee Creek
WS 100 YR - proposed
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground -McKee Creek
•
Bank Sta - McKee Creek
4700 4800 4900 5000 5100 5200 5300 5400
Station (ft)
McKee Creek Flood Study Plan: 1) McKee Creek 2) proposed
RS = 11497
598
596
- - - - - ,- --- -- -
594
i?? 592-

m 590-

w 588

586 - --- --- ------ ------ - - - -----

---- ----- -

--' - -
582
4850 4900 4950 5000 5050 5100
Station (ft)
Legend
k
WS 100 YR - McKee Creek
WS 100 YR - proposed
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground -McKee Creek
•
Bank Sta - McKee Creek
5150
McKee Creek Flood Study Plan: 1) McKee Creek 2) proposed
RS = 10028
605
Legend
k
WS 100 YR - McKee Creek

C
0
m
a?
w
600
595-
590
-+----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -----+-----
- ----- ----- ----- ------------ ------ -----
- ----- -----1----- ------------ ------'- ----- -----
-!----- -- --1----- ---------- ---- ' - ---- L - - - -
- - - - -
-;-----
------ - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
----- ----- - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------
------------ - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------
------------ - - - - - - - - - - -
------------
----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
----- =----- ---
----- ----- ---
WS 100 YR - proposed
Ground - proposed
- •
Bank Sta - proposed
-------- -- Ground - McKee Creek
------------
585 --- ---- -- BankSta - McKee Creek
---__---------
580 - - -
575-
4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 4950 5000 5050 5100
Station (ft)
McKee Creek Flood Study Plan: 1) McKee Creek 2) proposed
RS = 9353
595
590
585
c
0
F, 580
575
570
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
Legend
k
WS 100 YR - McKee Creek
WS 100 YR - proposed
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground -McKee Creek
•
Bank Sta - McKee Creek
5100
Station (ft)
:?G

Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) proposed 2/13/2008 2) existing 2/13/2008
Legend

588
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I WS 100 YR - proposed
- - -
-II - I - -
I - --- - -
I --- JI
- I -- --
- -
I --II
I I -
-
- I ?
I -
- - -_I - -
IL--II- I- 1
I -
-I -----J--
I I I
- - WS 100YR-existing
Ground

586 I
--I--i- I I I I
-i-- --1I --II--+- I
-i I I
-- -1I --1I-

1 I I
-+I--i I I I
-- -I+--1---I--i-_ I I
I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I

584- --I--,

I I
I I
1
1 , -

I I I I
I I I I
T -

I -- -

_

1 -

I
I I I

I -- -I

I I I I
I I I I

I I I I
-- --
T
I I I
I I I
T-
582-
..
I I I I I

I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I
.2
> I I ? I I I I Ir I I

LL]
I I
I I
1

580- - - 7 - - T -

1 - - - - - -
I - -1

I

I

I

I I
578-

1
I

I

I I
I I I
I I

I

I I I
I

I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I

I I
I I ?I
I I
576
1
-1- II - 1
I I 1
I I I
I I II

I?
(h
O O
L() O

(h

I? Lo
O N
(h O O
(O
V v
N
O v
- (h
O
O
N I?
I-- 00 O (h
(O LQ r
O I? 00 00
O O
(h
LO O (h - 00 O N (h LC)
m Lo Lo (o r
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Main Channel Distance (ft)
1 in Horiz. = 205 ft 1 in Vert. = 2.5 ft
McKee Creek (D07063S)
FLOODSTUDY COMPARISON TABLE - Clear Creek
STREAM: Clear Creek Cabarrus County, NC
Date: 2/13/2008
WSEL from
FIS Duplicate WSEL
from HEC-RAS Existing Conditions Model Proposed Conditions Model

River Station

Profile
Discharge
(cfs)
WSEL
(ft.)
WSEL
(ft.)
(FIS WSEL -
Dup. WSEL)
WSEL
(ft.) (Ext.
WSEL - Dup.
WSEL)
WSEL
(ft.)
(Prop.WSEL-
Ext. WSEL)
1539-934 1oYR 340 586.o8 585.8 -0.28
1539-934 loo YR 720 587.1 586.8 -0.3

1368.024 1oYR 340 585.63 585.54 -0.0
1368.024 loo YR 720 586.89 586.82 -0.07

1218.46 1oYR 340 583-90 584.44 0.54
1218.469 loo YR 720 585.56 585.56 0

1077-925 1oYR 340 583.56 584.07 0.51
1077.925 1ooYR 720 584.67 585.o6 0.39

910.539 1oYR 340 582.76 583.36 o.6
910.539 loo YR 720 583.93 584.32 0.39

786.371 1oYR 340 582.21 582.50 0.29
786.371 loo YR 720 583.27 583.43 o.16

641.631 1oYR 340 581.34 581.69 0.35
641.631 loo YR 720 582.0 582.6o 0.51

538.199 1oYR 340 581.17 581.32 0.15
538-199 loo YR 720 581.51 582.1 o.68

507.759 1oYR 340 580.28 581.o6 0.78
507.75 loo YR 720 581.40 582.04 o.64

352.937 1oYR 340 579-38 580.44 1.o6
352.937 loo YR 720 580.72 581.36 o.64

229.236 1oYR 340 578.71 57 .81 1.1
229.236 loo YR 720 579.97 58o.7z 0.75
Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) existing 2) proposed
River = hec Reach = HEC CL EX RS = 1368.024

592
Legend

590 - WS 100 YR -existing
- ---, -- - - --- --- -- --- --- --- --- ---J--------' -----------'- WS 100YR-proposed
588 Ground - proposed

o -- --r--- BankSta - proposed
586

> - -- ---r-
r
J
Ground - existing

584 --

r ----------

Bank Sta - existing

582 -- - -- --- ---l - -- -- -- -- -'- --

580
-50 0 50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) existing 2) proposed
River = hec Reach = HEC CL EX RS = 1218.469

587
Legend

586
WS 100 YR -proposed

585 k
WS 100 YR -existing
i?? 584 Ground - proposed
•

o -- ---- --- Bank Sta - proposed
583

>
- - - -- ' - - - ---
- - - --- - - - - - -
------ -----
---
Ground - existing
a?
w
•
582 Bank Sta -existing
581
580

579
-20 0 2 0 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft)
Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) existing 2) proposed
River = hec Reach = HEC CL EX RS = 1077.925

C
0
m
W
bbb
585

- r - -
584-
583-
- -- -
t - -
- --'-- -'-

582 -
--r -r -r- ---r- --r-- -7-- _7-- ----------r---r
-r- -r- - - -r -r- -,- -r- - -- -r -- -,-

581 - -- - - -- --- --- - -- -- - -- - -- --------------------

--- I--- I-

-
-
-
- -----------'- --'-- -'-

-
- ---
- ---
-
- --
-- -
--
-- -
--
- --- --------
-
580

579
Legend
WS 100 YR - proposed
k
WS 100 YR -existing
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground - existing
•
Bank Sta - existing
-50 0 50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) existing 2) proposed
River = hec Reach = HEC CL EX RS = 910.539
586-
585-
19
584
i?? 583-
C
7- 582
w 581
580
579
578
0
Legend
WS 100 YR - proposed
k
WS 100 YR -existing
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground - existing
•
Bank Sta - existing
50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) existing 2) proposed
River = hec Reach = HEC CL EX RS = 786.371

C
0
w
bbb
584-

582
-

'

580 .---------
----
-
-- ----- ----- ------- ------- ---

578

576
Legend
WS 100 YR - proposed
WS 100 YR -existing
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground - existing
•
Bank Sta - existing
0 50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) existing 2) proposed
River = hec Reach = HEC CL EX RS = 641.631
Legend

c
0
w
WS 100 YR - proposed
WS 100 YR -existing
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground - existing
•
Bank Sta - existing
Station (ft)
0 50 100 150 200 250
Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) existing 2) proposed
River = hec Reach = HEC CL EX RS = 538.199

c
0
w
Station (ft)
Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) existing 2) proposed
River = hec Reach = HEC CL EX RS = 507.759

C
0
m
w
86-

584

582
580

- - -----
578
- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ---- ------------ --

- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -----------------------------
576

574
Legend
WS 100 YR - proposed
k
WS 100 YR -existing
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground - existing
1
Ineff - existing
•
Bank Sta - existing
Legend
WS 100 YR - proposed
k
WS 100 YR -existing
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground - existing
Ineff - existing
•
Bank Sta - existing
0 50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
0 50 100 150 200 250
Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) existing 2) proposed
River = hec Reach = HEC CL EX RS = 352.937

C
0
m
w
bbl
581

580
579

578
---- ----- --------- -- - -
----- ----- ----- ---- ---------- --- ----

577 - ------
_ ----- ----------
_ - - - ---------
_ _
_
-----
--
----

----- --
--------- --
----
--- - ' -
---
-
'
--
---- ----- ---------- -
----------- ---- -------- -----
--- -----
576

575
Legend
WS 100 YR - proposed
k
WS 100 YR -existing
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground - existing
•
Bank Sta - existing
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Station (ft)
Clear Creek Floodstudy Plan: 1) existing 2) proposed
River = hec Reach = HEC CL EX RS = 229.236

C
0
m
w
583-
582
581-
580-
579-
578-
577
576-
575-
5747
0
Legend
WS 100 YR - proposed
k
WS 100 YR -existing
Ground - proposed
•
Bank Sta - proposed
Ground - existing
•
Bank Sta - existing
50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
Appendix 8 - FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
McKee Creek Draft Restoration Plan 08115108
(EEP # D07063S)
12-11-'©7 ©9:1© FROM-DENR EEP 9197152©81 T-833 P02/82 U-581
Appendix A
Categoricai Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project Inform ation
Project Name: MCKEE CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
Count Name: CASARRUs
EEP Number: ?o?a60
Project Sponsor,.
Project Contact Name: HEArHWAaswoRTH _
_
Address:
roject Contact S1I MACKENAN DRIVE, CARY NC 27511
C
Project Contact E-mail,
hw8tl:worth?wilh?rsrdv8nzl.GOm
E Project Manager: R0BJN DOLAN
• •

. Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
? ?
/ 2 - //- Ca .
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
? Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
112 - 10 _0 2
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18105